Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
A fact many on the Left have a hard time grasping....They were NEVER intended to be a State.And no Senators and a non voting CongressmanDC has 3 electoral votes now Just like the least populous State.Newsflash...I... favor keeping the EC
AND making DC a state
Ya know...that representation thing
If D.C was conservative, lefties would be singing different tune.
Good point. Another reason we should keep the EC. I think it should be both the EC and PV but if the choice was one OR the other, I would take the EC every timeYet Gore won the popular vote. You can dish it up anyway you want, but its written in history that Gore and Clinton won the popular vote.
And its a GREAT thing that the popular vote does not count for winning an election. If it did, massive voting corruption in any one place could throw the election one way or another. The fact that the election is decided by winning individual states/ electoral votes, means that any corruption in one place is minimized and diluted to some extent.
So how would that work exactly? Please use the last presidential election as an example.
Twentieth Amendment to the United States Constitution - Wikipedia
Exactly as it would work if no candidate gets 270 votes
That's not what you said. You said we should consider both, the EC and popular vote to make a decision.
You're clearly just trolling now, but I do wonder if you understand I what pointed out. We can't assume that the votes cast in an electoral election tell us who would have won if the election had been based on the popular vote.LOL - I'm not arguing about. I'm just pointing out that your supposed "fact" isn't all that.
That HRC got more votes than the blob? Yup—it’s a fact
If.
Talking about popular vote in presidential elections is as relevant as how many states were won by the candidate. It just give losing side something to whine about.
Or in this case the winning side. Lol
I don't see any winner whining. And you're no winner.
Yeah I thought it might have been you but wasn’t sure. I remember that post that was an awesome read. Wait til you break down the 2020 data it’s going to be unbelievableSomeone on here, I forget who it was, put together the 2016 data by individual precinct and when you break it down Trump absolutely crushed her. She only really handily won like 4 states or something like that, and there are only a few others that she even won at all. The rest of the precinct data shows trump literally destroyed her. It’s simply that they’ve packed the big cities in with so many people that it skews the popular vote total in favor of the democrat candidate. Anyone with a normal brain realizes that an entire nation’s presidential election shouldn’t be decided by only a few big cities. The left will never understand it though because they don’t understand how to lose gracefully, they instead get angry and emotional about it like the immature children that they are.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.
That was me. Taking Hillary's 20 states she won and lining them up by size of population against Trump's 30, Hillary on a 1:1 match-up really only beat Trump out on actual number of people voting for her in 3, maybe 4 states, lost to Trump on her other 17, then of course, Trump won 10 more. The actual number of people in the states doesn't really matter.
In every category Trump thwacked Hillary: in the top ten states of each, Trump beat her. In the next ten states, Trump crushed her. And in the third set of ten states, Hillary doesn't even appear. The ONLY state where Hillary hit a home run was California, basically, HER WHOLE ELECTION. Democrats are totally invested in holding, keeping, controlling and building that state by hook or crook. Our next mandate must be to get that state broken up into two states.
Hillary really ran a popular election, appealing to, and TRYING to appeal to, just a few major cities liker SF, LA, NYC, and Chicago. Those cities not only disenfranchised all the other people in their own states (most every one of those states is mostly red everywhere else outside the city limits), but had Hillary not carried just ONE of those cities, her campaign would have been totally in the DUMPER, probably losing 325 EC votes to 220, an annihilation. That is really why all these leftie goons are always crying about the popular vote---- ---- if they could just somehow have that, it would conceal just how weak, isolated and centralized they really are.
Democrats ARE A BLUFF: like a bird that opens it feathers to appear large to a predator. Their weakness is concealed by the fact that they control NYC and LA, the two clearinghouses for most ALL news media.
THE GREAT LIE by the Left is that he (Trump) doesn't carry a mandate, doesn't carry the people; all one has to do is look at his rallies compared to the pathetic shells that their candidates muster up. Every. Damn. Time.
View attachment 310173
Not in their insane demonic minds it doesn’tA lot of people voted for your blob; more voted for Hillary.Someone on here, I forget who it was, put together the 2016 data by individual precinct and when you break it down Trump absolutely crushed her. She only really handily won like 4 states or something like that, and there are only a few others that she even won at all. The rest of the precinct data shows trump literally destroyed her. It’s simply that they’ve packed the big cities in with so many people that it skews the popular vote total in favor of the democrat candidate. Anyone with a normal brain realizes that an entire nation’s presidential election shouldn’t be decided by only a few big cities. The left will never understand it though because they don’t understand how to lose gracefully, they instead get angry and emotional about it like the immature children that they are.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.
That was me. Taking Hillary's 20 states she won and lining them up by size of population against Trump's 30, Hillary on a 1:1 match-up really only beat Trump out on actual number of people voting for her in 3, maybe 4 states, lost to Trump on her other 17, then of course, Trump won 10 more. The actual number of people in the states doesn't really matter.
In every category Trump thwacked Hillary: in the top ten states of each, Trump beat her. In the next ten states, Trump crushed her. And in the third set of ten states, Hillary doesn't even appear. The ONLY state where Hillary hit a home run was California, basically, HER WHOLE ELECTION. Democrats are totally invested in holding, keeping, controlling and building that state by hook or crook. Our next mandate must be to get that state broken up into two states.
Hillary really ran a popular election, appealing to, and TRYING to appeal to, just a few major cities liker SF, LA, NYC, and Chicago. Those cities not only disenfranchised all the other people in their own states (most every one of those states is mostly red everywhere else outside the city limits), but had Hillary not carried just ONE of those cities, her campaign would have been totally in the DUMPER, probably losing 325 EC votes to 220, an annihilation. That is really why all these leftie goons are always crying about the popular vote---- ---- if they could just somehow have that, it would conceal just how weak, isolated and centralized they really are.
Democrats ARE A BLUFF: like a bird that opens it feathers to appear large to a predator. Their weakness is concealed by the fact that they control NYC and LA, the two clearinghouses for most ALL news media.
THE GREAT LIE by the Left is that he (Trump) doesn't carry a mandate, doesn't carry the people; all one has to do is look at his rallies compared to the pathetic shells that their candidates muster up. Every. Damn. Time.
View attachment 310173
who’s the President & who isn’t. All that matters
I didn't take the time of counting votes, but anyway Clinton and Gore both won the majority vote.
Yeah I thought it might have been you but wasn’t sure. I remember that post that was an awesome read. Wait til you break down the 2020 data it’s going to be unbelievableSomeone on here, I forget who it was, put together the 2016 data by individual precinct and when you break it down Trump absolutely crushed her. She only really handily won like 4 states or something like that, and there are only a few others that she even won at all. The rest of the precinct data shows trump literally destroyed her. It’s simply that they’ve packed the big cities in with so many people that it skews the popular vote total in favor of the democrat candidate. Anyone with a normal brain realizes that an entire nation’s presidential election shouldn’t be decided by only a few big cities. The left will never understand it though because they don’t understand how to lose gracefully, they instead get angry and emotional about it like the immature children that they are.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.
That was me. Taking Hillary's 20 states she won and lining them up by size of population against Trump's 30, Hillary on a 1:1 match-up really only beat Trump out on actual number of people voting for her in 3, maybe 4 states, lost to Trump on her other 17, then of course, Trump won 10 more. The actual number of people in the states doesn't really matter.
In every category Trump thwacked Hillary: in the top ten states of each, Trump beat her. In the next ten states, Trump crushed her. And in the third set of ten states, Hillary doesn't even appear. The ONLY state where Hillary hit a home run was California, basically, HER WHOLE ELECTION. Democrats are totally invested in holding, keeping, controlling and building that state by hook or crook. Our next mandate must be to get that state broken up into two states.
Hillary really ran a popular election, appealing to, and TRYING to appeal to, just a few major cities liker SF, LA, NYC, and Chicago. Those cities not only disenfranchised all the other people in their own states (most every one of those states is mostly red everywhere else outside the city limits), but had Hillary not carried just ONE of those cities, her campaign would have been totally in the DUMPER, probably losing 325 EC votes to 220, an annihilation. That is really why all these leftie goons are always crying about the popular vote---- ---- if they could just somehow have that, it would conceal just how weak, isolated and centralized they really are.
Democrats ARE A BLUFF: like a bird that opens it feathers to appear large to a predator. Their weakness is concealed by the fact that they control NYC and LA, the two clearinghouses for most ALL news media.
THE GREAT LIE by the Left is that he (Trump) doesn't carry a mandate, doesn't carry the people; all one has to do is look at his rallies compared to the pathetic shells that their candidates muster up. Every. Damn. Time.
View attachment 310173
That’s awesome data man. You should be working with the campaign. Do you follow Q?Yeah I thought it might have been you but wasn’t sure. I remember that post that was an awesome read. Wait til you break down the 2020 data it’s going to be unbelievableSomeone on here, I forget who it was, put together the 2016 data by individual precinct and when you break it down Trump absolutely crushed her. She only really handily won like 4 states or something like that, and there are only a few others that she even won at all. The rest of the precinct data shows trump literally destroyed her. It’s simply that they’ve packed the big cities in with so many people that it skews the popular vote total in favor of the democrat candidate. Anyone with a normal brain realizes that an entire nation’s presidential election shouldn’t be decided by only a few big cities. The left will never understand it though because they don’t understand how to lose gracefully, they instead get angry and emotional about it like the immature children that they are.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.
That was me. Taking Hillary's 20 states she won and lining them up by size of population against Trump's 30, Hillary on a 1:1 match-up really only beat Trump out on actual number of people voting for her in 3, maybe 4 states, lost to Trump on her other 17, then of course, Trump won 10 more. The actual number of people in the states doesn't really matter.
In every category Trump thwacked Hillary: in the top ten states of each, Trump beat her. In the next ten states, Trump crushed her. And in the third set of ten states, Hillary doesn't even appear. The ONLY state where Hillary hit a home run was California, basically, HER WHOLE ELECTION. Democrats are totally invested in holding, keeping, controlling and building that state by hook or crook. Our next mandate must be to get that state broken up into two states.
Hillary really ran a popular election, appealing to, and TRYING to appeal to, just a few major cities liker SF, LA, NYC, and Chicago. Those cities not only disenfranchised all the other people in their own states (most every one of those states is mostly red everywhere else outside the city limits), but had Hillary not carried just ONE of those cities, her campaign would have been totally in the DUMPER, probably losing 325 EC votes to 220, an annihilation. That is really why all these leftie goons are always crying about the popular vote---- ---- if they could just somehow have that, it would conceal just how weak, isolated and centralized they really are.
Democrats ARE A BLUFF: like a bird that opens it feathers to appear large to a predator. Their weakness is concealed by the fact that they control NYC and LA, the two clearinghouses for most ALL news media.
THE GREAT LIE by the Left is that he (Trump) doesn't carry a mandate, doesn't carry the people; all one has to do is look at his rallies compared to the pathetic shells that their candidates muster up. Every. Damn. Time.
View attachment 310173
One subtle but interesting fact if you study my chart closely is that Trump was getting as many actual voters in his 29th and 30th states Wyoming and Alaska, states where nobody effectively lives (relatively speaking), as Hillary was getting out of her 19th and 20th states, Delaware and Vermont, where a LOT of people live (per population density)!
Meantime Trump got like 8X as many actual votes in his 19th place as Hillary, and easily 3X as many out of his 20th place spot, Arkansas. No one ever points this out.
Hillary's (and the Democrat's) ENTIRE campaign to win rests wholly on California. California is the Left's coup d'état on the constitution and the voters of this country.
EVERYTHING they tell you is a lie.
If you missed it in another thread, here is a bit more data on 2016 (the red shows where Trump led Hillary in actual votes):
View attachment 310241
It weighs the states by population. Basically, my bar graph broken down numerically. It shows that Trump tended to win STATES, big states, by sheer volume, whereas Hillary mainly won smaller states, very small states, cities, really, and only in dense populations confined to small areas.
That’s awesome data man. You should be working with the campaign. Do you follow Q?Yeah I thought it might have been you but wasn’t sure. I remember that post that was an awesome read. Wait til you break down the 2020 data it’s going to be unbelievableSomeone on here, I forget who it was, put together the 2016 data by individual precinct and when you break it down Trump absolutely crushed her. She only really handily won like 4 states or something like that, and there are only a few others that she even won at all. The rest of the precinct data shows trump literally destroyed her. It’s simply that they’ve packed the big cities in with so many people that it skews the popular vote total in favor of the democrat candidate. Anyone with a normal brain realizes that an entire nation’s presidential election shouldn’t be decided by only a few big cities. The left will never understand it though because they don’t understand how to lose gracefully, they instead get angry and emotional about it like the immature children that they are.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.
That was me. Taking Hillary's 20 states she won and lining them up by size of population against Trump's 30, Hillary on a 1:1 match-up really only beat Trump out on actual number of people voting for her in 3, maybe 4 states, lost to Trump on her other 17, then of course, Trump won 10 more. The actual number of people in the states doesn't really matter.
In every category Trump thwacked Hillary: in the top ten states of each, Trump beat her. In the next ten states, Trump crushed her. And in the third set of ten states, Hillary doesn't even appear. The ONLY state where Hillary hit a home run was California, basically, HER WHOLE ELECTION. Democrats are totally invested in holding, keeping, controlling and building that state by hook or crook. Our next mandate must be to get that state broken up into two states.
Hillary really ran a popular election, appealing to, and TRYING to appeal to, just a few major cities liker SF, LA, NYC, and Chicago. Those cities not only disenfranchised all the other people in their own states (most every one of those states is mostly red everywhere else outside the city limits), but had Hillary not carried just ONE of those cities, her campaign would have been totally in the DUMPER, probably losing 325 EC votes to 220, an annihilation. That is really why all these leftie goons are always crying about the popular vote---- ---- if they could just somehow have that, it would conceal just how weak, isolated and centralized they really are.
Democrats ARE A BLUFF: like a bird that opens it feathers to appear large to a predator. Their weakness is concealed by the fact that they control NYC and LA, the two clearinghouses for most ALL news media.
THE GREAT LIE by the Left is that he (Trump) doesn't carry a mandate, doesn't carry the people; all one has to do is look at his rallies compared to the pathetic shells that their candidates muster up. Every. Damn. Time.
View attachment 310173
One subtle but interesting fact if you study my chart closely is that Trump was getting as many actual voters in his 29th and 30th states Wyoming and Alaska, states where nobody effectively lives (relatively speaking), as Hillary was getting out of her 19th and 20th states, Delaware and Vermont, where a LOT of people live (per population density)!
Meantime Trump got like 8X as many actual votes in his 19th place as Hillary, and easily 3X as many out of his 20th place spot, Arkansas. No one ever points this out.
Hillary's (and the Democrat's) ENTIRE campaign to win rests wholly on California. California is the Left's coup d'état on the constitution and the voters of this country.
EVERYTHING they tell you is a lie.
If you missed it in another thread, here is a bit more data on 2016 (the red shows where Trump led Hillary in actual votes):
View attachment 310241
It weighs the states by population. Basically, my bar graph broken down numerically. It shows that Trump tended to win STATES, big states, by sheer volume, whereas Hillary mainly won smaller states, very small states, cities, really, and only in dense populations confined to small areas.
Qanon. It’s the back channel platform trump is using to disclose to the world what the deep state has been doing and what’s being done about it. It’s the largest classified info dump in the history of the world and it’s being done with plausible deniability so that he can be transparent with us without having to deal with the media backlash. It’s amazing man. You should check it out.That’s awesome data man. You should be working with the campaign. Do you follow Q?Yeah I thought it might have been you but wasn’t sure. I remember that post that was an awesome read. Wait til you break down the 2020 data it’s going to be unbelievableSomeone on here, I forget who it was, put together the 2016 data by individual precinct and when you break it down Trump absolutely crushed her. She only really handily won like 4 states or something like that, and there are only a few others that she even won at all. The rest of the precinct data shows trump literally destroyed her. It’s simply that they’ve packed the big cities in with so many people that it skews the popular vote total in favor of the democrat candidate. Anyone with a normal brain realizes that an entire nation’s presidential election shouldn’t be decided by only a few big cities. The left will never understand it though because they don’t understand how to lose gracefully, they instead get angry and emotional about it like the immature children that they are.
That was me. Taking Hillary's 20 states she won and lining them up by size of population against Trump's 30, Hillary on a 1:1 match-up really only beat Trump out on actual number of people voting for her in 3, maybe 4 states, lost to Trump on her other 17, then of course, Trump won 10 more. The actual number of people in the states doesn't really matter.
In every category Trump thwacked Hillary: in the top ten states of each, Trump beat her. In the next ten states, Trump crushed her. And in the third set of ten states, Hillary doesn't even appear. The ONLY state where Hillary hit a home run was California, basically, HER WHOLE ELECTION. Democrats are totally invested in holding, keeping, controlling and building that state by hook or crook. Our next mandate must be to get that state broken up into two states.
Hillary really ran a popular election, appealing to, and TRYING to appeal to, just a few major cities liker SF, LA, NYC, and Chicago. Those cities not only disenfranchised all the other people in their own states (most every one of those states is mostly red everywhere else outside the city limits), but had Hillary not carried just ONE of those cities, her campaign would have been totally in the DUMPER, probably losing 325 EC votes to 220, an annihilation. That is really why all these leftie goons are always crying about the popular vote---- ---- if they could just somehow have that, it would conceal just how weak, isolated and centralized they really are.
Democrats ARE A BLUFF: like a bird that opens it feathers to appear large to a predator. Their weakness is concealed by the fact that they control NYC and LA, the two clearinghouses for most ALL news media.
THE GREAT LIE by the Left is that he (Trump) doesn't carry a mandate, doesn't carry the people; all one has to do is look at his rallies compared to the pathetic shells that their candidates muster up. Every. Damn. Time.
View attachment 310173
One subtle but interesting fact if you study my chart closely is that Trump was getting as many actual voters in his 29th and 30th states Wyoming and Alaska, states where nobody effectively lives (relatively speaking), as Hillary was getting out of her 19th and 20th states, Delaware and Vermont, where a LOT of people live (per population density)!
Meantime Trump got like 8X as many actual votes in his 19th place as Hillary, and easily 3X as many out of his 20th place spot, Arkansas. No one ever points this out.
Hillary's (and the Democrat's) ENTIRE campaign to win rests wholly on California. California is the Left's coup d'état on the constitution and the voters of this country.
EVERYTHING they tell you is a lie.
If you missed it in another thread, here is a bit more data on 2016 (the red shows where Trump led Hillary in actual votes):
View attachment 310241
It weighs the states by population. Basically, my bar graph broken down numerically. It shows that Trump tended to win STATES, big states, by sheer volume, whereas Hillary mainly won smaller states, very small states, cities, really, and only in dense populations confined to small areas.
Q?
Good point. Another reason we should keep the EC. I think it should be both the EC and PV but if the choice was one OR the other, I would take the EC every timeAnd its a GREAT thing that the popular vote does not count for winning an election. If it did, massive voting corruption in any one place could throw the election one way or another. The fact that the election is decided by winning individual states/ electoral votes, means that any corruption in one place is minimized and diluted to some extent.
So how would that work exactly? Please use the last presidential election as an example.
Twentieth Amendment to the United States Constitution - Wikipedia
Exactly as it would work if no candidate gets 270 votes
That's not what you said. You said we should consider both, the EC and popular vote to make a decision.
Oh...
I assumed you were reading the other posts in the thread.
If no candidate wins both the plurality of the total votes cast AND 270 electoral votes, the 20th amendment takes over.
If the question is whether to have the PV or the EC, I say keep everything as it is. It’s fine as it is.
However if we really want to “make every vote count”, we need a system that actually does make every vote count. Mine does.
Democrats have been trying to change the system to work in their favor, and stay in power, since Democrats.
You're clearly just trolling now, but I do wonder if you understand I what pointed out. We can't assume that the votes cast in an electoral election tell us who would have won if the election had been based on the popular vote.That HRC got more votes than the blob? Yup—it’s a fact
If.
Talking about popular vote in presidential elections is as relevant as how many states were won by the candidate. It just give losing side something to whine about.
Or in this case the winning side. Lol
I don't see any winner whining. And you're no winner.
The OP is a loser. He’s whining. You’re a loser. You’re whining. Another blob supporter is whining about illegal aliens voting. For do-called winners, you snowflakes sure do spend a lot of time whining.
You're clearly just trolling now, but I do wonder if you understand I what pointed out. We can't assume that the votes cast in an electoral election tell us who would have won if the election had been based on the popular vote.
If.
Talking about popular vote in presidential elections is as relevant as how many states were won by the candidate. It just give losing side something to whine about.
Or in this case the winning side. Lol
I don't see any winner whining. And you're no winner.
The OP is a loser. He’s whining. You’re a loser. You’re whining. Another blob supporter is whining about illegal aliens voting. For do-called winners, you snowflakes sure do spend a lot of time whining.
What exactly am I whining about?
Oh, by the way... Snowflake is a term used on leftist crybabies who couldn't accept losing the the last elections and are crying ever since. Let me give you a hint...
Coming from the conspiracy whack job who thinks the number 8 has some mythic significance...thanks for the chuckleNot in their insane demonic minds it doesn’tA lot of people voted for your blob; more voted for Hillary.Someone on here, I forget who it was, put together the 2016 data by individual precinct and when you break it down Trump absolutely crushed her. She only really handily won like 4 states or something like that, and there are only a few others that she even won at all. The rest of the precinct data shows trump literally destroyed her. It’s simply that they’ve packed the big cities in with so many people that it skews the popular vote total in favor of the democrat candidate. Anyone with a normal brain realizes that an entire nation’s presidential election shouldn’t be decided by only a few big cities. The left will never understand it though because they don’t understand how to lose gracefully, they instead get angry and emotional about it like the immature children that they are.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.
That was me. Taking Hillary's 20 states she won and lining them up by size of population against Trump's 30, Hillary on a 1:1 match-up really only beat Trump out on actual number of people voting for her in 3, maybe 4 states, lost to Trump on her other 17, then of course, Trump won 10 more. The actual number of people in the states doesn't really matter.
In every category Trump thwacked Hillary: in the top ten states of each, Trump beat her. In the next ten states, Trump crushed her. And in the third set of ten states, Hillary doesn't even appear. The ONLY state where Hillary hit a home run was California, basically, HER WHOLE ELECTION. Democrats are totally invested in holding, keeping, controlling and building that state by hook or crook. Our next mandate must be to get that state broken up into two states.
Hillary really ran a popular election, appealing to, and TRYING to appeal to, just a few major cities liker SF, LA, NYC, and Chicago. Those cities not only disenfranchised all the other people in their own states (most every one of those states is mostly red everywhere else outside the city limits), but had Hillary not carried just ONE of those cities, her campaign would have been totally in the DUMPER, probably losing 325 EC votes to 220, an annihilation. That is really why all these leftie goons are always crying about the popular vote---- ---- if they could just somehow have that, it would conceal just how weak, isolated and centralized they really are.
Democrats ARE A BLUFF: like a bird that opens it feathers to appear large to a predator. Their weakness is concealed by the fact that they control NYC and LA, the two clearinghouses for most ALL news media.
THE GREAT LIE by the Left is that he (Trump) doesn't carry a mandate, doesn't carry the people; all one has to do is look at his rallies compared to the pathetic shells that their candidates muster up. Every. Damn. Time.
View attachment 310173
who’s the President & who isn’t. All that matters
we have a system that has worked but is not without flaw. Many feel that the electoral system ignores the votes of millions of people which it does, and a popular vote system would give a better gauge for how each American feels. Nothing wrong with that discussion. I think the argument is strong in favor of a popular vote. Why do you oppose it?Good point. Another reason we should keep the EC. I think it should be both the EC and PV but if the choice was one OR the other, I would take the EC every time
So how would that work exactly? Please use the last presidential election as an example.
Twentieth Amendment to the United States Constitution - Wikipedia
Exactly as it would work if no candidate gets 270 votes
That's not what you said. You said we should consider both, the EC and popular vote to make a decision.
Oh...
I assumed you were reading the other posts in the thread.
If no candidate wins both the plurality of the total votes cast AND 270 electoral votes, the 20th amendment takes over.
If the question is whether to have the PV or the EC, I say keep everything as it is. It’s fine as it is.
However if we really want to “make every vote count”, we need a system that actually does make every vote count. Mine does.
IF this... IF that... Really.
How about this, IF you lose the election, you try to win next one, instead of trying to overturn current one.
We already have system that works, and what's not broke it doesn't need fixing.
Democrats have been trying to change the system to work in their favor, and stay in power, since Democrats. When they win, system works great, and when they lose, system have to be changed so they can win again.
because it only comes up when you lose the overall election. they don't wish to change it because its more fair, they wish to change it cause they feel it's to their advantage.we have a system that has worked but is not without flaw. Many feel that the electoral system ignores the votes of millions of people which it does, and a popular vote system would give a better gauge for how each American feels. Nothing wrong with that discussion. I think the argument is strong in favor of a popular vote. Why do you oppose it?So how would that work exactly? Please use the last presidential election as an example.
Twentieth Amendment to the United States Constitution - Wikipedia
Exactly as it would work if no candidate gets 270 votes
That's not what you said. You said we should consider both, the EC and popular vote to make a decision.
Oh...
I assumed you were reading the other posts in the thread.
If no candidate wins both the plurality of the total votes cast AND 270 electoral votes, the 20th amendment takes over.
If the question is whether to have the PV or the EC, I say keep everything as it is. It’s fine as it is.
However if we really want to “make every vote count”, we need a system that actually does make every vote count. Mine does.
IF this... IF that... Really.
How about this, IF you lose the election, you try to win next one, instead of trying to overturn current one.
We already have system that works, and what's not broke it doesn't need fixing.
Democrats have been trying to change the system to work in their favor, and stay in power, since Democrats. When they win, system works great, and when they lose, system have to be changed so they can win again.
we have a system that has worked but is not without flaw. Many feel that the electoral system ignores the votes of millions of people which it does, and a popular vote system would give a better gauge for how each American feels. Nothing wrong with that discussion. I think the argument is strong in favor of a popular vote. Why do you oppose it?So how would that work exactly? Please use the last presidential election as an example.
Twentieth Amendment to the United States Constitution - Wikipedia
Exactly as it would work if no candidate gets 270 votes
That's not what you said. You said we should consider both, the EC and popular vote to make a decision.
Oh...
I assumed you were reading the other posts in the thread.
If no candidate wins both the plurality of the total votes cast AND 270 electoral votes, the 20th amendment takes over.
If the question is whether to have the PV or the EC, I say keep everything as it is. It’s fine as it is.
However if we really want to “make every vote count”, we need a system that actually does make every vote count. Mine does.
IF this... IF that... Really.
How about this, IF you lose the election, you try to win next one, instead of trying to overturn current one.
We already have system that works, and what's not broke it doesn't need fixing.
Democrats have been trying to change the system to work in their favor, and stay in power, since Democrats. When they win, system works great, and when they lose, system have to be changed so they can win again.
