Revisiting That Dirty Popular Vote Thing Again

[Ame®icano]

I am sick of hearing that Hillary won the "popular vote" when that doesn't even count for anything! What counts is the popular vote AT THE STATE LEVEL, after that, it becomes 50 STATE elections. You don't win a country,

YOU WIN STATES.

You'd think democrats and Hillary would KNOW that considering that she was both First Lady, New York Senator and Secretary of STATE.

So I went back and wanted to look at the data a bit different way.

I'm also sick of hearing how pathetic the red states are. So I wanted to know, just what WAS each candidate really up against in 2016 and what did they really win?

In 2016, Hillary won TWENTY states, Trump won THIRTY. To win a state, you have to go up against all voters in a given state; the more people, the more likely voters so, the harder it is to win. And by winning a state, you also win and carry the voice of that state and the people that go in it. So what exactly did the 2016 candidates win?

I looked up the latest tallies of state population, and in the 20 states that Hillary won, her states total population (THE BLUE STATES) was: 2016 BLUE STATE POPULATION = 140,743,676.

And the thirty states that Trump won? 2016 RED STATE POPULATION = 163,435,276.

Yes. Trump's states have 22,691,600 more people in them. A not so small fact I've never seen mentioned before. What is the significance of this?

Trump won 30 states with nearly 23 million more people in them compared to Hillary's 20 states. Not only does that mean you had to carry sway with more people in more states (and by implication, means Trump represented a far greater diversity of the nation!), it means that there are many millions of people who either didn't vote last time or voted against Trump in states he won before who could decide to come out and vote this time or switch their vote to Trump after the recent fiasco of years of Democrats making false claims and accusations all proven wrong and spending tens of millions of dollars of hard earned taxpayer money on silly Russia investigations and a baseless, desperate, petulant, childish impeachment that was nothing more than an abuse of House power resulting in a near Constitutional crisis.

Democrats have stirred up an angry hornets nest, meantime, with the likes of who they have to represent them this time, Democrats may find many of themselves demoralized bowing to the futility.

The 50 US States Ranked By Population

In case anyone wants to check my math.

Trump has 30 states and a potential of up to TWENTY MILLION additional voters this time around, his supporters are pissed, and that is if he doesn't even win any additional states!

Democrats CAN'T feel good about that.

Hillary won the popular vote

So what? Trump won more states.

And if popular vote counts, why Barry was presidential candidate, and not her, since she had more votes than him in Dem Primaries?

Hillary won the popular vote

Only way Hillary will hear "Madam President"....

 

[HappyJoy]

I am sick of hearing that Hillary won the "popular vote" when that doesn't even count for anything! What counts is the popular vote AT THE STATE LEVEL, after that, it becomes 50 STATE elections. You don't win a country,

YOU WIN STATES.

You'd think democrats and Hillary would KNOW that considering that she was both First Lady, New York Senator and Secretary of STATE.

So I went back and wanted to look at the data a bit different way.

I'm also sick of hearing how pathetic the red states are. So I wanted to know, just what WAS each candidate really up against in 2016 and what did they really win?

In 2016, Hillary won TWENTY states, Trump won THIRTY. To win a state, you have to go up against all voters in a given state; the more people, the more likely voters so, the harder it is to win. And by winning a state, you also win and carry the voice of that state and the people that go in it. So what exactly did the 2016 candidates win?

I looked up the latest tallies of state population, and in the 20 states that Hillary won, her states total population (THE BLUE STATES) was: 2016 BLUE STATE POPULATION = 140,743,676.

And the thirty states that Trump won? 2016 RED STATE POPULATION = 163,435,276.

Yes. Trump's states have 22,691,600 more people in them. A not so small fact I've never seen mentioned before. What is the significance of this?

Trump won 30 states with nearly 23 million more people in them compared to Hillary's 20 states. Not only does that mean you had to carry sway with more people in more states (and by implication, means Trump represented a far greater diversity of the nation!), it means that there are many millions of people who either didn't vote last time or voted against Trump in states he won before who could decide to come out and vote this time or switch their vote to Trump after the recent fiasco of years of Democrats making false claims and accusations all proven wrong and spending tens of millions of dollars of hard earned taxpayer money on silly Russia investigations and a baseless, desperate, petulant, childish impeachment that was nothing more than an abuse of House power resulting in a near Constitutional crisis.

Democrats have stirred up an angry hornets nest, meantime, with the likes of who they have to represent them this time, Democrats may find many of themselves demoralized bowing to the futility.

The 50 US States Ranked By Population

In case anyone wants to check my math.

Trump has 30 states and a potential of up to TWENTY MILLION additional voters this time around, his supporters are pissed, and that is if he doesn't even win any additional states!

Democrats CAN'T feel good about that.

All that math and for what? Clinton still received more votes. Nobody is confused about how the electoral college works or doesn't work. It still doesn't change the fact that as a sitting president more people voted against him than any other in history and just so happened also lost the popular vote by a higher margin than any of the other fluke presidencies that managed to lose the popular vote.

Trump argues this by lying about voter fraud. Because he's a putz but I guess you all have to find your own coping mechanisms.

 

[JustAGuy1]

Yeahbut, they were all within a few counties.

She could have had a BILLION more votes in California but once you win a state, you WON it.

Presidential elections are 50 STATE elections!

If electing a president were simply 50 state elections, the 50 states picking, then what is the purpose of the electors and the electoral college vote?? Each State would just get one vote....

but that is NOT how it works and NOT how the founders created it.

Maybe that's the way it should work. After all, if the left can complain about changing the EC, why not us complain about a single state vote count?

Won't happen, either way. The EC is here to stay.

The compact could end it. And what used to be anomaly in history has now occurred twice in 5 cycles, so imo it needs to go.

But the question should be … can Trump win a simple maj this time? The econ is about as good as it can get, peace is pretty much at hand …. it should be a gop blowout.

What would you think about a rule where the President Elect must get the plurality of the PV as well as 270 EVs?

It's funny how you people want to change the rules everytime you don't get your way.

 

[iceberg]

If electing a president were simply 50 state elections, the 50 states picking, then what is the purpose of the electors and the electoral college vote?? Each State would just get one vote....

but that is NOT how it works and NOT how the founders created it.

Maybe that's the way it should work. After all, if the left can complain about changing the EC, why not us complain about a single state vote count?

Won't happen, either way. The EC is here to stay.

The compact could end it. And what used to be anomaly in history has now occurred twice in 5 cycles, so imo it needs to go.

But the question should be … can Trump win a simple maj this time? The econ is about as good as it can get, peace is pretty much at hand …. it should be a gop blowout.

What would you think about a rule where the President Elect must get the plurality of the PV as well as 270 EVs?

It's funny how you people want to change the rules everytime you don't get your way.

and by funny, you mean huge pain in the ever-fucking-ass.

 

[candycorn]

If electing a president were simply 50 state elections, the 50 states picking, then what is the purpose of the electors and the electoral college vote?? Each State would just get one vote....

but that is NOT how it works and NOT how the founders created it.

Maybe that's the way it should work. After all, if the left can complain about changing the EC, why not us complain about a single state vote count?

Won't happen, either way. The EC is here to stay.

The compact could end it. And what used to be anomaly in history has now occurred twice in 5 cycles, so imo it needs to go.

But the question should be … can Trump win a simple maj this time? The econ is about as good as it can get, peace is pretty much at hand …. it should be a gop blowout.

What would you think about a rule where the President Elect must get the plurality of the PV as well as 270 EVs?

I don't think we'll ever change it unless the compact makes the EV irrelevant. IF that ever happens, the smaller states will have a motivation to pass state laws to apportion their EVs in proportion to their state's popular vote. That would maintain the EV's making a single vote in a small state actually worth "more" than one in a big state. I mean I really don't have a problem with the EC besides it really makes voting as goper irrelevant in CA or a dem in the deep south. And the Founders didn't intend that. They just didn't want the bigger NE colonies ganging up to run roughshod over the rest. That's just not going to happen now because FLA, CAlif, Texas are so huge, but their self interests aren't really as similar as say NY and PA and Mass in 1787. And Fla and Tex were once dem and Ca was once gop.

Id rather have the EC than the straight popular vote. But having both stipulations seems to make more sense.

It’ll never happen even though it would remove all of the disenfranchisement that some feel. Political minority voters in States that will decidedly be blue or red will still be able to affect the outcome.

 

[candycorn]

If electing a president were simply 50 state elections, the 50 states picking, then what is the purpose of the electors and the electoral college vote?? Each State would just get one vote....

but that is NOT how it works and NOT how the founders created it.

Maybe that's the way it should work. After all, if the left can complain about changing the EC, why not us complain about a single state vote count?

Won't happen, either way. The EC is here to stay.

The compact could end it. And what used to be anomaly in history has now occurred twice in 5 cycles, so imo it needs to go.

But the question should be … can Trump win a simple maj this time? The econ is about as good as it can get, peace is pretty much at hand …. it should be a gop blowout.

What would you think about a rule where the President Elect must get the plurality of the PV as well as 270 EVs?

It's funny how you people want to change the rules everytime you don't get your way.

I do?

I love the EC.

 

[candycorn]

Maybe that's the way it should work. After all, if the left can complain about changing the EC, why not us complain about a single state vote count?

Won't happen, either way. The EC is here to stay.

The compact could end it. And what used to be anomaly in history has now occurred twice in 5 cycles, so imo it needs to go.

But the question should be … can Trump win a simple maj this time? The econ is about as good as it can get, peace is pretty much at hand …. it should be a gop blowout.

What would you think about a rule where the President Elect must get the plurality of the PV as well as 270 EVs?

It's funny how you people want to change the rules everytime you don't get your way.

and by funny, you mean huge pain in the ever-fucking-ass.

That would probably be a cucumber you left there

 

[bendog]

If electing a president were simply 50 state elections, the 50 states picking, then what is the purpose of the electors and the electoral college vote?? Each State would just get one vote....

but that is NOT how it works and NOT how the founders created it.

Maybe that's the way it should work. After all, if the left can complain about changing the EC, why not us complain about a single state vote count?

Won't happen, either way. The EC is here to stay.

The compact could end it. And what used to be anomaly in history has now occurred twice in 5 cycles, so imo it needs to go.

But the question should be … can Trump win a simple maj this time? The econ is about as good as it can get, peace is pretty much at hand …. it should be a gop blowout.

What would you think about a rule where the President Elect must get the plurality of the PV as well as 270 EVs?

It's funny how you people want to change the rules everytime you don't get your way.

Why do you assume anyone changes their mind? Although the only party winning the EV without also the pop vote is the gop, and they certainly don't want any change … even if it'd empower their own voters in places like Ca and NY.

 

[Carl in Michigan]

Maybe that's the way it should work. After all, if the left can complain about changing the EC, why not us complain about a single state vote count?

Won't happen, either way. The EC is here to stay.

The compact could end it. And what used to be anomaly in history has now occurred twice in 5 cycles, so imo it needs to go.

But the question should be … can Trump win a simple maj this time? The econ is about as good as it can get, peace is pretty much at hand …. it should be a gop blowout.

What would you think about a rule where the President Elect must get the plurality of the PV as well as 270 EVs?

I don't think we'll ever change it unless the compact makes the EV irrelevant. IF that ever happens, the smaller states will have a motivation to pass state laws to apportion their EVs in proportion to their state's popular vote. That would maintain the EV's making a single vote in a small state actually worth "more" than one in a big state. I mean I really don't have a problem with the EC besides it really makes voting as goper irrelevant in CA or a dem in the deep south. And the Founders didn't intend that. They just didn't want the bigger NE colonies ganging up to run roughshod over the rest. That's just not going to happen now because FLA, CAlif, Texas are so huge, but their self interests aren't really as similar as say NY and PA and Mass in 1787. And Fla and Tex were once dem and Ca was once gop.

Id rather have the EC than the straight popular vote. But having both stipulations seems to make more sense.

It’ll never happen even though it would remove all of the disenfranchisement that some feel. Political minority voters in States that will decidedly be blue or red will still be able to affect the outcome.

I think states should have the electoral college where counties vote for their governors and legislators. Michigan is red except Detroit. California is red except LA. Illinois is red except Chicago

 

[candycorn]

Correct, she had millions votes more. And Trump won 10 more states. Got it?

Yeahbut, they were all within a few counties.

She could have had a BILLION more votes in California but once you win a state, you WON it.

Presidential elections are 50 STATE elections!

I personally like and endorse the EC over the popular vote.

That doesn’t change the fact that HRC got more votes than the Cheeto

It also doesn't change that fact that that is a meaningless claim. It's like a losing football team saying "Well, we gained yards than the other team" - suggesting that, if the game had been scored on yardage rather than points, they would have one. But it's an empty claim. If the game had been scored on yardage, the other team would have played differently. They would have focused on gaining yards, rather than scoring points. It's very possible they'd have still won.

Sorry about the sports analogy - but hopefully you get the point.

If it’s meaningless...why are you so bothered by the fact that she got millions more votes than your blob?

Me thinks that your bothered because it somehow—in your mind—delegitimizes the blob’s Presidency. Grow up

You're right, it's meaningless that she got couple of million votes more. We simply don't care, since she's not president, but it obviously means a lot to you that "she won" something.

By the way, she had more votes than Barry in 2008 Dem primaries, and I don't see you complaining how "she won" back then. Hypocrite.

Democratic Party Primary rules are dumb.

Hillary getting more votes than your blob just triggers you snowflakes so it’s fun to point it out on these threads you consider meaningless.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Hillary won the popular vote

No, she didn't. There was no popular vote election in 2016. If there had been, the vote totals would have been different. The entire election would have been different.

Ok, she got millions and millions more votes than your blob

Correct, she had millions votes more. And Trump won 10 more states. Got it?

Yeahbut, they were all within a few counties.

She could have had a BILLION more votes in California but once you win a state, you WON it.

Presidential elections are 50 STATE elections!

If electing a president were simply 50 state elections, the 50 states picking, then what is the purpose of the electors and the electoral college vote?? Each State would just get one vote....

but that is NOT how it works and NOT how the founders created it.

I asked you for a link to when a majority of States did congressional district voting, you never answered so I looked it up. It has never happened. In fact when Hamilton was complaining about winner take all States the majority of States did not even vote on them the State legislature picked the Presidential electors I provided the link which you obviously IGNORED. The fact is for most of the time we have been a Country winner take all HAS BEEN the voting means by the States for electors.

 

[toobfreak]

I am sick of hearing that Hillary won the "popular vote" when that doesn't even count for anything! What counts is the popular vote AT THE STATE LEVEL, after that, it becomes 50 STATE elections. You don't win a country,

YOU WIN STATES.

You'd think democrats and Hillary would KNOW that considering that she was both First Lady, New York Senator and Secretary of STATE.

So I went back and wanted to look at the data a bit different way.

I'm also sick of hearing how pathetic the red states are. So I wanted to know, just what WAS each candidate really up against in 2016 and what did they really win?

In 2016, Hillary won TWENTY states, Trump won THIRTY. To win a state, you have to go up against all voters in a given state; the more people, the more likely voters so, the harder it is to win. And by winning a state, you also win and carry the voice of that state and the people that go in it. So what exactly did the 2016 candidates win?

I looked up the latest tallies of state population, and in the 20 states that Hillary won, her states total population (THE BLUE STATES) was: 2016 BLUE STATE POPULATION = 140,743,676.

And the thirty states that Trump won? 2016 RED STATE POPULATION = 163,435,276.

Yes. Trump's states have 22,691,600 more people in them. A not so small fact I've never seen mentioned before. What is the significance of this?

Trump won 30 states with nearly 23 million more people in them compared to Hillary's 20 states. Not only does that mean you had to carry sway with more people in more states (and by implication, means Trump represented a far greater diversity of the nation!), it means that there are many millions of people who either didn't vote last time or voted against Trump in states he won before who could decide to come out and vote this time or switch their vote to Trump after the recent fiasco of years of Democrats making false claims and accusations all proven wrong and spending tens of millions of dollars of hard earned taxpayer money on silly Russia investigations and a baseless, desperate, petulant, childish impeachment that was nothing more than an abuse of House power resulting in a near Constitutional crisis.

Democrats have stirred up an angry hornets nest, meantime, with the likes of who they have to represent them this time, Democrats may find many of themselves demoralized bowing to the futility.

The 50 US States Ranked By Population

In case anyone wants to check my math.

Trump has 30 states and a potential of up to TWENTY MILLION additional voters this time around, his supporters are pissed, and that is if he doesn't even win any additional states!

Democrats CAN'T feel good about that.

All that math and for what? Clinton still received more votes. Nobody is confused about how the electoral college works or doesn't work. It still doesn't change the fact that as a sitting president more people voted against him than any other in history and just so happened also lost the popular vote by a higher margin than any of the other fluke presidencies that managed to lose the popular vote.

STILL? Still what? So what? I've heard you idiots told 90,000 times now THE NUMBER OF VOTES MEANS NOTHING, yet you morons wear it on your sleeve like a badge of honor! Hillary got move votes than Barack, yet you don't bitch about that because you still got a democrat in office!

And without voter ID, no one knows how many votes were legit! So you can take your 2.8 million unqualified votes, that and a $1.50 will buy you a cup of coffee. And if you actually READ these threads, yes, a great many people are apparently VERY confused about why we have the EC, why we need the EC, why it was put in place, and how it works, and that the popular vote is a meaningless statistic not used in this country for anything.

 

[Ame®icano]

Folks are bothered by California's vote rigging.

. . . and then? When the Federal government asked nicely to look at those tallies? California told it to go pound sand.

So every time some Clinton supporter brings up this bullshit about, "she had millions votes more," I am reminded that the present administration wanted to see the paper trail, just like they wanted to see the work that Crosscheck did, but both times, they were told;

"GO POUND SAND."

So yeah, most folks don't buy that shit, that dog don't hunt.

We could ask the question we hear from the left all the time... What do they have to hide? If there is no vote rigging, they have nothing to worry about.

California has more registered voters than citizens. Why is that allowed?

California is also first state that legalize solicitation of ballots, where third party is allowed to collect and deliver voting ballots. So these "third-party" organizations go to nursing homes and churches, harvest ballots from old people and transport it to the polling place. Nothing prevents them from changing the ballots, or disposing ballots they don't like, and there is no mechanism that can prevent that from happening.

In 2018, California Republican David Valadao had 5000 vote lead over challenger Democrat T.J. Cox. The margin was large enough that media even called the win for Valadao, but late ballots delivered by the third party changed the result in favor of Democrat who won by 862 votes. If it happen once, maybe it's coincience, but... Since California allowed ballot harvesting, Democrats won every single Congressional seat in Orange County that has been Republican stronghold for decades. Still coincidence?

 

[toobfreak]

If electing a president were simply 50 state elections, the 50 states picking, then what is the purpose of the electors and the electoral college vote?? Each State would just get one vote....

but that is NOT how it works and NOT how the founders created it.

Maybe that's the way it should work. After all, if the left can complain about changing the EC, why not us complain about a single state vote count?

Won't happen, either way. The EC is here to stay.

The compact could end it. And what used to be anomaly in history has now occurred twice in 5 cycles, so imo it needs to go.

But the question should be … can Trump win a simple maj this time? The econ is about as good as it can get, peace is pretty much at hand …. it should be a gop blowout.

What would you think about a rule where the President Elect must get the plurality of the PV as well as 270 EVs?

It's funny how you people want to change the rules everytime you don't get your way.

What you are really describing is the mental and emotional under-development of a CHILD.

• Children do not handle not getting their way well.

• Children will lie or cheat to come out ahead or turn things to their advantage.

• Children always remember and recount things to their advantage not as they happened, but as they WANTED them to happen.

• Children have fits when they don't get their desires met hoping that it'll somehow change the outcome.

• Children are very slow to learn from their mistakes, usually thinking that if they just keep doing something, eventually they'll get their way.

• Children always see their failures not as a result of their own actions but the result of some unfair higher authority imposed upon them (ie, a victim).

 

[HappyJoy]

I am sick of hearing that Hillary won the "popular vote" when that doesn't even count for anything! What counts is the popular vote AT THE STATE LEVEL, after that, it becomes 50 STATE elections. You don't win a country,

YOU WIN STATES.

You'd think democrats and Hillary would KNOW that considering that she was both First Lady, New York Senator and Secretary of STATE.

So I went back and wanted to look at the data a bit different way.

I'm also sick of hearing how pathetic the red states are. So I wanted to know, just what WAS each candidate really up against in 2016 and what did they really win?

In 2016, Hillary won TWENTY states, Trump won THIRTY. To win a state, you have to go up against all voters in a given state; the more people, the more likely voters so, the harder it is to win. And by winning a state, you also win and carry the voice of that state and the people that go in it. So what exactly did the 2016 candidates win?

I looked up the latest tallies of state population, and in the 20 states that Hillary won, her states total population (THE BLUE STATES) was: 2016 BLUE STATE POPULATION = 140,743,676.

And the thirty states that Trump won? 2016 RED STATE POPULATION = 163,435,276.

Yes. Trump's states have 22,691,600 more people in them. A not so small fact I've never seen mentioned before. What is the significance of this?

Trump won 30 states with nearly 23 million more people in them compared to Hillary's 20 states. Not only does that mean you had to carry sway with more people in more states (and by implication, means Trump represented a far greater diversity of the nation!), it means that there are many millions of people who either didn't vote last time or voted against Trump in states he won before who could decide to come out and vote this time or switch their vote to Trump after the recent fiasco of years of Democrats making false claims and accusations all proven wrong and spending tens of millions of dollars of hard earned taxpayer money on silly Russia investigations and a baseless, desperate, petulant, childish impeachment that was nothing more than an abuse of House power resulting in a near Constitutional crisis.

Democrats have stirred up an angry hornets nest, meantime, with the likes of who they have to represent them this time, Democrats may find many of themselves demoralized bowing to the futility.

The 50 US States Ranked By Population

In case anyone wants to check my math.

Trump has 30 states and a potential of up to TWENTY MILLION additional voters this time around, his supporters are pissed, and that is if he doesn't even win any additional states!

Democrats CAN'T feel good about that.

All that math and for what? Clinton still received more votes. Nobody is confused about how the electoral college works or doesn't work. It still doesn't change the fact that as a sitting president more people voted against him than any other in history and just so happened also lost the popular vote by a higher margin than any of the other fluke presidencies that managed to lose the popular vote.

STILL? Still what? So what? I've heard you idiots told 90,000 times now THE NUMBER OF VOTES MEANS NOTHING, yet you morons wear it on your sleeve like a badge of honor! Hillary got move votes than Barack, yet you don't bitch about that because you still got a democrat in office!

And without voter ID, no one knows how many votes were legit! So you can take your 2.8 million unqualified votes, that and a $1.50 will buy you a cup of coffee. And if you actually READ these threads, yes, a great many people are apparently VERY confused about why we have the EC, why we need the EC, why it was put in place, and how it works, and that the popular vote is a meaningless statistic not used in this country for anything.

Will of the people, having a mandate, getting shit done. It usually requires public acceptance and approval. Trump has neither and unlike any other president never has. I understand your anger over this, doesn't change the facts.

 

[JustAGuy1]

Maybe that's the way it should work. After all, if the left can complain about changing the EC, why not us complain about a single state vote count?

Won't happen, either way. The EC is here to stay.

The compact could end it. And what used to be anomaly in history has now occurred twice in 5 cycles, so imo it needs to go.

But the question should be … can Trump win a simple maj this time? The econ is about as good as it can get, peace is pretty much at hand …. it should be a gop blowout.

What would you think about a rule where the President Elect must get the plurality of the PV as well as 270 EVs?

It's funny how you people want to change the rules everytime you don't get your way.

Why do you assume anyone changes their mind? Although the only party winning the EV without also the pop vote is the gop, and they certainly don't want any change … even if it'd empower their own voters in places like Ca and NY.

You don't comprehend well do you? YOU lost and YOUR side (including you) wants to change the rules.

 

[JustAGuy1]

Maybe that's the way it should work. After all, if the left can complain about changing the EC, why not us complain about a single state vote count?

Won't happen, either way. The EC is here to stay.

The compact could end it. And what used to be anomaly in history has now occurred twice in 5 cycles, so imo it needs to go.

But the question should be … can Trump win a simple maj this time? The econ is about as good as it can get, peace is pretty much at hand …. it should be a gop blowout.

What would you think about a rule where the President Elect must get the plurality of the PV as well as 270 EVs?

It's funny how you people want to change the rules everytime you don't get your way.

What you are really describing is the mental and emotional under-development of a CHILD.

• Children do not handle not getting their way well.

• Children will lie or cheat to come out ahead or turn things to their advantage.

• Children always remember and recount things to their advantage not as they happened, but as they WANTED them to happen.

• Children have fits when they don't get their desires met hoping that it'll somehow change the outcome.

• Children are very slow to learn from their mistakes, usually thinking that if they just keep doing something, eventually they'll get their way.

• Children always see their failures not as a result of their own actions but the result of some unfair higher authority imposed upon them (ie, a victim).

Pretty much spot on for Dems since Rump won fair and square.

 

[Ame®icano]

Correct, she had millions votes more. And Trump won 10 more states. Got it?

Yeahbut, they were all within a few counties.

She could have had a BILLION more votes in California but once you win a state, you WON it.

Presidential elections are 50 STATE elections!

If electing a president were simply 50 state elections, the 50 states picking, then what is the purpose of the electors and the electoral college vote?? Each State would just get one vote....

but that is NOT how it works and NOT how the founders created it.

Maybe that's the way it should work. After all, if the left can complain about changing the EC, why not us complain about a single state vote count?

Won't happen, either way. The EC is here to stay.

The compact could end it. And what used to be anomaly in history has now occurred twice in 5 cycles, so imo it needs to go.

But the question should be … can Trump win a simple maj this time? The econ is about as good as it can get, peace is pretty much at hand …. it should be a gop blowout.

It's not anomaly if is intended to work this way. The goal of having all states having say in our elections, and that goal was is achieved. There is no reason to change system that works.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Where is Care? She claimed we should do district voting for Electoral college cause the Founders wanted that. The Truth is ONLY 2 Founders wanted it and even while they claimed it was needed MOST States elected them by State legislature NOT peoples votes.

 

[MisterBeale]

I am sick of hearing that Hillary won the "popular vote" when that doesn't even count for anything! What counts is the popular vote AT THE STATE LEVEL, after that, it becomes 50 STATE elections. You don't win a country,

YOU WIN STATES.

You'd think democrats and Hillary would KNOW that considering that she was both First Lady, New York Senator and Secretary of STATE.

So I went back and wanted to look at the data a bit different way.

I'm also sick of hearing how pathetic the red states are. So I wanted to know, just what WAS each candidate really up against in 2016 and what did they really win?

In 2016, Hillary won TWENTY states, Trump won THIRTY. To win a state, you have to go up against all voters in a given state; the more people, the more likely voters so, the harder it is to win. And by winning a state, you also win and carry the voice of that state and the people that go in it. So what exactly did the 2016 candidates win?

I looked up the latest tallies of state population, and in the 20 states that Hillary won, her states total population (THE BLUE STATES) was: 2016 BLUE STATE POPULATION = 140,743,676.

And the thirty states that Trump won? 2016 RED STATE POPULATION = 163,435,276.

Yes. Trump's states have 22,691,600 more people in them. A not so small fact I've never seen mentioned before. What is the significance of this?

Trump won 30 states with nearly 23 million more people in them compared to Hillary's 20 states. Not only does that mean you had to carry sway with more people in more states (and by implication, means Trump represented a far greater diversity of the nation!), it means that there are many millions of people who either didn't vote last time or voted against Trump in states he won before who could decide to come out and vote this time or switch their vote to Trump after the recent fiasco of years of Democrats making false claims and accusations all proven wrong and spending tens of millions of dollars of hard earned taxpayer money on silly Russia investigations and a baseless, desperate, petulant, childish impeachment that was nothing more than an abuse of House power resulting in a near Constitutional crisis.

Democrats have stirred up an angry hornets nest, meantime, with the likes of who they have to represent them this time, Democrats may find many of themselves demoralized bowing to the futility.

The 50 US States Ranked By Population

In case anyone wants to check my math.

Trump has 30 states and a potential of up to TWENTY MILLION additional voters this time around, his supporters are pissed, and that is if he doesn't even win any additional states!

Democrats CAN'T feel good about that.

All that math and for what? Clinton still received more votes. Nobody is confused about how the electoral college works or doesn't work. It still doesn't change the fact that as a sitting president more people voted against him than any other in history and just so happened also lost the popular vote by a higher margin than any of the other fluke presidencies that managed to lose the popular vote.

Trump argues this by lying about voter fraud. Because he's a putz but I guess you all have to find your own coping mechanisms.

You say Trump is lying. . . if he is "lying," why won't California PROVE that there is no voter fraud? Why did they just not offer up the forensic proof when asked?

You know, it is hard for a lot of Americans to take this state seriously when they passed a State wide law to become a Sanctuary State, IOW, nullifying and disregarding the authority of ICE. Likewise, the following cities and towns are known as "Sanctuary" in that state;

California

Alameda County
Berkley
Contra Costa County
Los Angeles County
Los Angeles
Monterey County
Napa County
Oakland
Riverside County
Sacramento County
San Bernardino County
San Diego County
San Francisco
San Francisco County
San Mateo County
Santa Ana
Santa Clara County
Santa Cruz County
Sonoma County
Watsonville


Most conservatives and moderates do not believe them when they say they kept illegals from voting in presidential elections, when they refuse the Federal Government the ability to audit their voter roles. So. . . with that in mind, yeah, you can tell the other states which way your electoral votes go, but to us? Unless you let us SEE your paper trail on the popular vote?

Nahhh. . . it means absolutely nothing to us.