When Democrats say Hillary Clinton won the popular vote...

[HenryBHough]

And there ain't no Santa no matter how many kids believe in him.

But.....butttt.....butttttt! Comrade Barry!

 

[BuckToothMoron]

Yeah. That's cool. She got more votes. More people voted for her. Facts are facts.

And....Santa is on par with Jesus. Both are fairy tales. For some reason, lots of people never stop believing in one of em'.

It's just plain silly to even talk about it. Everybody knew how the election was going to be decided. The canidates didn't campaign to get the most popular votes, they campaigned to win the electoral votes. Did Trump even every campaign in California, Washington, or Oregon? If two teams play a baseball game and the winning team will be the team who hits the most homeruns, they won't be swing the bat to hit a single, the pitcher won't care if the first base runner steals second. Can we stop this silliness already?

 

[DGS49]

If the election were conducted on the basis of POPULAR VOTE, then the entire campaign would have been totally different. The issues emphasized by the candidates would have been issues that matter to the dense population centers, mainly on the coasts, and the campaigning would have focused, 80%, on campaigning in California, New York, and the major population centers elsewhere. Flyover country would have been largely ignored.

Who would have won such an election is nothing but idle speculation, as is pointing out the meaningless "popular vote" statistics. Nobody can know who would have won. But one thing is abundantly clear, HRC failed to win this election despite every conceivable advantage. She had a huge registration advantage nationwide, and the full support of the MSM, organized labor, Academe, all government employees (except military) at all levels, all ethnic minorities, gender feminists, and on and on. She took an election that she "could not lose" and managed to lose it.

Otherwise, one might consider the fact that many, many (I would say "millions of") would-be Trump voters in places like California, New York, Massachusetts, Washington, DC, Illinois, etc., simply DID NOT VOTE, knowing that their votes would be a futile waste of time. These folks would have voted early and often for Trump had the result been based on popular vote. Which renders HRC's "popular vote victory" utterly without significance.

To the generation that got a trophy even when they lost, I say, "Grow up. Life isn't like that."

 

[Pogo]

If the election were conducted on the basis of POPULAR VOTE, then the entire campaign would have been totally different. The issues emphasized by the candidates would have been issues that matter to the dense population centers, mainly on the coasts, and the campaigning would have focused, 80%, on campaigning in California, New York, and the major population centers elsewhere. Flyover country would have been largely ignored.

Who would have won such an election is nothing but idle speculation, as is pointing out the meaningless "popular vote" statistics. Nobody can know who would have won. But one thing is abundantly clear, HRC failed to win this election despite every conceivable advantage. She had a huge registration advantage nationwide, and the full support of the MSM, organized labor, Academe, all government employees (except military) at all levels, all ethnic minorities, gender feminists, and on and on. She took an election that she "could not lose" and managed to lose it.

Otherwise, one might consider the fact that many, many (I would say "millions of") would-be Trump voters in places like California, New York, Massachusetts, Washington, DC, Illinois, etc., simply DID NOT VOTE, knowing that their votes would be a futile waste of time. These folks would have voted early and often for Trump had the result been based on popular vote. Which renders HRC's "popular vote victory" utterly without significance.

To the generation that got a trophy even when they lost, I say, "Grow up. Life isn't like that."

Good points, except for one --- Donald Rump had, and always had, a YUUUUGE media advantage. Anybody who doesn't get that just doesn't understand how media psychology works.

 

[Pogo]

Yeah. That's cool. She got more votes. More people voted for her. Facts are facts.

And....Santa is on par with Jesus. Both are fairy tales. For some reason, lots of people never stop believing in one of em'.

It's just plain silly to even talk about it. Everybody knew how the election was going to be decided. The canidates didn't campaign to get the most popular votes, they campaigned to win the electoral votes. Did Trump even every campaign in California, Washington, or Oregon? If two teams play a baseball game and the winning team will be the team who hits the most homeruns, they won't be swing the bat to hit a single, the pitcher won't care if the first base runner steals second. Can we stop this silliness already?

The election ran under the rules of the time, of course. And you don't change the rules after the result, of course. And running it differently would have resulted in different campaigns, of course.

But this Electrical College discussion comes up like clockwork every four years regardless the results, on account of the bizarre effects that must be explained to rational people. That never changes; it was here four years ago and it'll be here four years hence, take it to the bank. And it doesn't come up much in between those four years simply because ---- it's not relevant at those times. So no, it's not "silly to even talk about it--- it's "normal".

I suspect some here are trying to sweep a recurring four-year discussion under the rug because of the glaring inequity this election demonstrated.

 

[BuckToothMoron]

Yeah. That's cool. She got more votes. More people voted for her. Facts are facts.

And....Santa is on par with Jesus. Both are fairy tales. For some reason, lots of people never stop believing in one of em'.

It's just plain silly to even talk about it. Everybody knew how the election was going to be decided. The canidates didn't campaign to get the most popular votes, they campaigned to win the electoral votes. Did Trump even every campaign in California, Washington, or Oregon? If two teams play a baseball game and the winning team will be the team who hits the most homeruns, they won't be swing the bat to hit a single, the pitcher won't care if the first base runner steals second. Can we stop this silliness already?

The election ran under the rules of the time, of course. And you don't change the rules after the result, of course. And running it differently would have resulted in different campaigns, of course.

But this Electrical College discussion comes up like clockwork every four years regardless the results, on account of the bizarre effects that must be explained to rational people. That never changes; it was here four years ago and it'll be here four years hence, take it to the bank. And it doesn't come up much in between those four years simply because ---- it's not relevant at those times. So no, it's not "silly to even talk about it--- it's "normal".

I suspect some here are trying to sweep a recurring four-year discussion under the rug because of the glaring inequity this election demonstrated.

Inequity? To who? And it is mentioned every 4 years, but only when the non-consequential popular vote is different from the real vote do people actually discuss it. It is good when this happens, because it does educate people who are open to learning about why the process exist the way it does, and why it is much better than a popular vote.

 

[hazlnut]

...it's kind of like taking a vote of 5-year-olds to see how many of them believe in Santa Claus.

It doesn't matter.

Hillary Clinton lost the electoral college and that's what matters according to the United States Constitution as written by the Founding Fathers. Donald Trump has been elected the President of the United States, and anyone who says otherwise is engaging in sedition against our Republic.

And there ain't no Santa no matter how many kids believe in him.

Agreed.

But it's not as dumb as Republicans proclaiming Trump has a "mandate".

The only mandate Trump has is to find Ohio and Penn voters jobs - fast. Without a major infrastructure bill, it can't be done.

 

[TheDude]

...it's kind of like taking a vote of 5-year-olds to see how many of them believe in Santa Claus.

It doesn't matter.

Hillary Clinton lost the electoral college and that's what matters according to the United States Constitution as written by the Founding Fathers. Donald Trump has been elected the President of the United States, and anyone who says otherwise is engaging in sedition against our Republic.

And there ain't no Santa no matter how many kids believe in him.

Consider the irony, because it's similar to participation trophies they appreciate so much. When the rules don't suit them, they cry like children because they feel entitled. These are not rational people.

 

[Pogo]

Yeah. That's cool. She got more votes. More people voted for her. Facts are facts.

And....Santa is on par with Jesus. Both are fairy tales. For some reason, lots of people never stop believing in one of em'.

It's just plain silly to even talk about it. Everybody knew how the election was going to be decided. The canidates didn't campaign to get the most popular votes, they campaigned to win the electoral votes. Did Trump even every campaign in California, Washington, or Oregon? If two teams play a baseball game and the winning team will be the team who hits the most homeruns, they won't be swing the bat to hit a single, the pitcher won't care if the first base runner steals second. Can we stop this silliness already?

The election ran under the rules of the time, of course. And you don't change the rules after the result, of course. And running it differently would have resulted in different campaigns, of course.

But this Electrical College discussion comes up like clockwork every four years regardless the results, on account of the bizarre effects that must be explained to rational people. That never changes; it was here four years ago and it'll be here four years hence, take it to the bank. And it doesn't come up much in between those four years simply because ---- it's not relevant at those times. So no, it's not "silly to even talk about it--- it's "normal".

I suspect some here are trying to sweep a recurring four-year discussion under the rug because of the glaring inequity this election demonstrated.

Inequity? To who? And it is mentioned every 4 years, but only when the non-consequential popular vote is different from the real vote do people actually discuss it. It is good when this happens, because it does educate people who are open to learning about why the process exist the way it does, and why it is much better than a popular vote.

No, it's brought up every four years, period.

The inequity referenced is the contrast between this year's EV and PV. It's the widest disparity ever recorded, easily tripling the previous record. That's significant and can't be ignored.

And congrats on the 180 from "silly to even talk about it" to "good when this happens". That was done at Rumpian speed. But at least you landed in the right place.

 

[LoneLaugher]

Yeah. That's cool. She got more votes. More people voted for her. Facts are facts.

And....Santa is on par with Jesus. Both are fairy tales. For some reason, lots of people never stop believing in one of em'.

It's just plain silly to even talk about it. Everybody knew how the election was going to be decided. The canidates didn't campaign to get the most popular votes, they campaigned to win the electoral votes. Did Trump even every campaign in California, Washington, or Oregon? If two teams play a baseball game and the winning team will be the team who hits the most homeruns, they won't be swing the bat to hit a single, the pitcher won't care if the first base runner steals second. Can we stop this silliness already?

Man...if nutbags didn't have their own reality, they'd be great to have discussions with.

I NEVER suggested that this election was unfair or that the rules were not the same for both candidates. I simply stated a fact.

However, the electoral college absolutely is something that deserves to be talked about. Saying that it isn't is, in fact, silly.

 

[LoneLaugher]

Yeah. That's cool. She got more votes. More people voted for her. Facts are facts.

And....Santa is on par with Jesus. Both are fairy tales. For some reason, lots of people never stop believing in one of em'.

It's just plain silly to even talk about it. Everybody knew how the election was going to be decided. The canidates didn't campaign to get the most popular votes, they campaigned to win the electoral votes. Did Trump even every campaign in California, Washington, or Oregon? If two teams play a baseball game and the winning team will be the team who hits the most homeruns, they won't be swing the bat to hit a single, the pitcher won't care if the first base runner steals second. Can we stop this silliness already?

The election ran under the rules of the time, of course. And you don't change the rules after the result, of course. And running it differently would have resulted in different campaigns, of course.

But this Electrical College discussion comes up like clockwork every four years regardless the results, on account of the bizarre effects that must be explained to rational people. That never changes; it was here four years ago and it'll be here four years hence, take it to the bank. And it doesn't come up much in between those four years simply because ---- it's not relevant at those times. So no, it's not "silly to even talk about it--- it's "normal".

I suspect some here are trying to sweep a recurring four-year discussion under the rug because of the glaring inequity this election demonstrated.

Inequity? To who? And it is mentioned every 4 years, but only when the non-consequential popular vote is different from the real vote do people actually discuss it. It is good when this happens, because it does educate people who are open to learning about why the process exist the way it does, and why it is much better than a popular vote.

You seem very sure that it is much better than a popular vote. Why is that? You think a vote from a dude in Wyoming should be moire important than a vote from a dude in California?

 

[BuckToothMoron]

Yeah. That's cool. She got more votes. More people voted for her. Facts are facts.

And....Santa is on par with Jesus. Both are fairy tales. For some reason, lots of people never stop believing in one of em'.

It's just plain silly to even talk about it. Everybody knew how the election was going to be decided. The canidates didn't campaign to get the most popular votes, they campaigned to win the electoral votes. Did Trump even every campaign in California, Washington, or Oregon? If two teams play a baseball game and the winning team will be the team who hits the most homeruns, they won't be swing the bat to hit a single, the pitcher won't care if the first base runner steals second. Can we stop this silliness already?

The election ran under the rules of the time, of course. And you don't change the rules after the result, of course. And running it differently would have resulted in different campaigns, of course.

But this Electrical College discussion comes up like clockwork every four years regardless the results, on account of the bizarre effects that must be explained to rational people. That never changes; it was here four years ago and it'll be here four years hence, take it to the bank. And it doesn't come up much in between those four years simply because ---- it's not relevant at those times. So no, it's not "silly to even talk about it--- it's "normal".

I suspect some here are trying to sweep a recurring four-year discussion under the rug because of the glaring inequity this election demonstrated.

Inequity? To who? And it is mentioned every 4 years, but only when the non-consequential popular vote is different from the real vote do people actually discuss it. It is good when this happens, because it does educate people who are open to learning about why the process exist the way it does, and why it is much better than a popular vote.

No, it's brought up every four years, period.

The inequity referenced is the contrast between this year's EV and PV. It's the widest disparity ever recorded, easily tripling the previous record. That's significant and can't be ignored.

And congrats on the 180 from "silly to even talk about it" to "good when this happens". That was done at Rumpian speed. But at least you landed in the right place.

Explain to me why the popular vote matters, considering it has never mattered since this country has been electing presidents.

 

[Rustic]

Yeah. That's cool. She got more votes. More people voted for her. Facts are facts.

And....Santa is on par with Jesus. Both are fairy tales. For some reason, lots of people never stop believing in one of em'.

It's just plain silly to even talk about it. Everybody knew how the election was going to be decided. The canidates didn't campaign to get the most popular votes, they campaigned to win the electoral votes. Did Trump even every campaign in California, Washington, or Oregon? If two teams play a baseball game and the winning team will be the team who hits the most homeruns, they won't be swing the bat to hit a single, the pitcher won't care if the first base runner steals second. Can we stop this silliness already?

The election ran under the rules of the time, of course. And you don't change the rules after the result, of course. And running it differently would have resulted in different campaigns, of course.

But this Electrical College discussion comes up like clockwork every four years regardless the results, on account of the bizarre effects that must be explained to rational people. That never changes; it was here four years ago and it'll be here four years hence, take it to the bank. And it doesn't come up much in between those four years simply because ---- it's not relevant at those times. So no, it's not "silly to even talk about it--- it's "normal".

I suspect some here are trying to sweep a recurring four-year discussion under the rug because of the glaring inequity this election demonstrated.

Inequity? To who? And it is mentioned every 4 years, but only when the non-consequential popular vote is different from the real vote do people actually discuss it. It is good when this happens, because it does educate people who are open to learning about why the process exist the way it does, and why it is much better than a popular vote.

No, it's brought up every four years, period.

The inequity referenced is the contrast between this year's EV and PV. It's the widest disparity ever recorded, easily tripling the previous record. That's significant and can't be ignored.

And congrats on the 180 from "silly to even talk about it" to "good when this happens". That was done at Rumpian speed. But at least you landed in the right place.

Explain to me why the popular vote matters, considering it has never mattered since this country has been electing presidents.

He's a snowflake, he doesn't understand that this is a republic not a shit eating democracy… LOL

 

[Rexx Taylor]

I think Trump actually always had a 5 Million Point lead all night being about 4 Million or so Illegals voted

 

[BuckToothMoron]

Yeah. That's cool. She got more votes. More people voted for her. Facts are facts.

And....Santa is on par with Jesus. Both are fairy tales. For some reason, lots of people never stop believing in one of em'.

It's just plain silly to even talk about it. Everybody knew how the election was going to be decided. The canidates didn't campaign to get the most popular votes, they campaigned to win the electoral votes. Did Trump even every campaign in California, Washington, or Oregon? If two teams play a baseball game and the winning team will be the team who hits the most homeruns, they won't be swing the bat to hit a single, the pitcher won't care if the first base runner steals second. Can we stop this silliness already?

Man...if nutbags didn't have their own reality, they'd be great to have discussions with.

I NEVER suggested that this election was unfair or that the rules were not the same for both candidates. I simply stated a fact.

However, the electoral college absolutely is something that deserves to be talked about. Saying that it isn't is, in fact, silly.

Talked about is ok. Complain about the system because you don't understand it is completely different, and there is seems to be a whole lot of liberal ass aching going on about it. Eric Holder has even called for a pop vote. Scary stuff when a former AG doesn't even understand the reasons for it.

 

[BuckToothMoron]

Yeah. That's cool. She got more votes. More people voted for her. Facts are facts.

And....Santa is on par with Jesus. Both are fairy tales. For some reason, lots of people never stop believing in one of em'.

It's just plain silly to even talk about it. Everybody knew how the election was going to be decided. The canidates didn't campaign to get the most popular votes, they campaigned to win the electoral votes. Did Trump even every campaign in California, Washington, or Oregon? If two teams play a baseball game and the winning team will be the team who hits the most homeruns, they won't be swing the bat to hit a single, the pitcher won't care if the first base runner steals second. Can we stop this silliness already?

The election ran under the rules of the time, of course. And you don't change the rules after the result, of course. And running it differently would have resulted in different campaigns, of course.

But this Electrical College discussion comes up like clockwork every four years regardless the results, on account of the bizarre effects that must be explained to rational people. That never changes; it was here four years ago and it'll be here four years hence, take it to the bank. And it doesn't come up much in between those four years simply because ---- it's not relevant at those times. So no, it's not "silly to even talk about it--- it's "normal".

I suspect some here are trying to sweep a recurring four-year discussion under the rug because of the glaring inequity this election demonstrated.

Inequity? To who? And it is mentioned every 4 years, but only when the non-consequential popular vote is different from the real vote do people actually discuss it. It is good when this happens, because it does educate people who are open to learning about why the process exist the way it does, and why it is much better than a popular vote.

You seem very sure that it is much better than a popular vote. Why is that? You think a vote from a dude in Wyoming should be moire important than a vote from a dude in California?

I have provided more than enough links to people of your ilk in order to try an educate you on why the framers rejected a pop vote. Here is a short and simply explanation, but for those students who would like a deeper understanding try reading the federalist papers, specifically no 68.

The Electoral College - Origin and History

A third idea was to have the president elected by a direct popular vote. Direct election was rejected not because the Framers of the Constitution doubted public intelligence but rather because they feared that without sufficient information about candidates from outside their State, people would naturally vote for a "favorite son" from their own State or region. At worst, no president would emerge with a popular majority sufficient to govern the whole country. At best, the choice of president would always be decided by the largest, most populous States with little regard for the smaller ones.

 

[LoneLaugher]

Please explain how the electoral college represents the vote of a Californian and a Wyomingite. Do the math. Tell me that it figures.

There was a time when people in vast areas of the nation couldn't get info on the election or the candidates. So...electors had the duty of representing them. This is no longer the case. It can and should be reformed.

Trump is going to be our president. That's not the point of this discussion.

If you are looking for people griping about the election that we just had, you'll find me asking questions about how voter suppression laws may have prevented people from voting in a few swing states. The margin of victory in these states was very small. This ought to concern you as well...but I'm sure it doesn't.

 

[LoneLaugher]

Yeah. That's cool. She got more votes. More people voted for her. Facts are facts.

And....Santa is on par with Jesus. Both are fairy tales. For some reason, lots of people never stop believing in one of em'.

It's just plain silly to even talk about it. Everybody knew how the election was going to be decided. The canidates didn't campaign to get the most popular votes, they campaigned to win the electoral votes. Did Trump even every campaign in California, Washington, or Oregon? If two teams play a baseball game and the winning team will be the team who hits the most homeruns, they won't be swing the bat to hit a single, the pitcher won't care if the first base runner steals second. Can we stop this silliness already?

The election ran under the rules of the time, of course. And you don't change the rules after the result, of course. And running it differently would have resulted in different campaigns, of course.

But this Electrical College discussion comes up like clockwork every four years regardless the results, on account of the bizarre effects that must be explained to rational people. That never changes; it was here four years ago and it'll be here four years hence, take it to the bank. And it doesn't come up much in between those four years simply because ---- it's not relevant at those times. So no, it's not "silly to even talk about it--- it's "normal".

I suspect some here are trying to sweep a recurring four-year discussion under the rug because of the glaring inequity this election demonstrated.

Inequity? To who? And it is mentioned every 4 years, but only when the non-consequential popular vote is different from the real vote do people actually discuss it. It is good when this happens, because it does educate people who are open to learning about why the process exist the way it does, and why it is much better than a popular vote.

You seem very sure that it is much better than a popular vote. Why is that? You think a vote from a dude in Wyoming should be moire important than a vote from a dude in California?

I have provided more than enough links to people of your ilk in order to try an educate you on why the framers rejected a pop vote. Here is a short and simply explanation, but for those students who would like a deeper understanding try reading the federalist papers, specifically no 68.

The Electoral College - Origin and History

A third idea was to have the president elected by a direct popular vote. Direct election was rejected not because the Framers of the Constitution doubted public intelligence but rather because they feared that without sufficient information about candidates from outside their State, people would naturally vote for a "favorite son" from their own State or region. At worst, no president would emerge with a popular majority sufficient to govern the whole country. At best, the choice of president would always be decided by the largest, most populous States with little regard for the smaller ones.

My ilk?

 

[candycorn]

Yeah. That's cool. She got more votes. More people voted for her. Facts are facts.

And....Santa is on par with Jesus. Both are fairy tales. For some reason, lots of people never stop believing in one of em'.

You mad bro 10 million less voted for her than Obama?

Nope. Obama is a top 10 POTUS.

Mad isn't the word. Embarrassed is the word.

Only in your ilks mind, history will say otherwise.. Trump will deliver what Obama couldn't and that scares the shit out of you

I'm rooting for Trump to do all the great things he has promised. I'm also hoping he doesn't do all the bigoted things he promised.

I'm an American. Good news doesn't scare me.

Same here.

 

[BuckToothMoron]

It's just plain silly to even talk about it. Everybody knew how the election was going to be decided. The canidates didn't campaign to get the most popular votes, they campaigned to win the electoral votes. Did Trump even every campaign in California, Washington, or Oregon? If two teams play a baseball game and the winning team will be the team who hits the most homeruns, they won't be swing the bat to hit a single, the pitcher won't care if the first base runner steals second. Can we stop this silliness already?

The election ran under the rules of the time, of course. And you don't change the rules after the result, of course. And running it differently would have resulted in different campaigns, of course.

But this Electrical College discussion comes up like clockwork every four years regardless the results, on account of the bizarre effects that must be explained to rational people. That never changes; it was here four years ago and it'll be here four years hence, take it to the bank. And it doesn't come up much in between those four years simply because ---- it's not relevant at those times. So no, it's not "silly to even talk about it--- it's "normal".

I suspect some here are trying to sweep a recurring four-year discussion under the rug because of the glaring inequity this election demonstrated.

Inequity? To who? And it is mentioned every 4 years, but only when the non-consequential popular vote is different from the real vote do people actually discuss it. It is good when this happens, because it does educate people who are open to learning about why the process exist the way it does, and why it is much better than a popular vote.

You seem very sure that it is much better than a popular vote. Why is that? You think a vote from a dude in Wyoming should be moire important than a vote from a dude in California?

I have provided more than enough links to people of your ilk in order to try an educate you on why the framers rejected a pop vote. Here is a short and simply explanation, but for those students who would like a deeper understanding try reading the federalist papers, specifically no 68.

The Electoral College - Origin and History

A third idea was to have the president elected by a direct popular vote. Direct election was rejected not because the Framers of the Constitution doubted public intelligence but rather because they feared that without sufficient information about candidates from outside their State, people would naturally vote for a "favorite son" from their own State or region. At worst, no president would emerge with a popular majority sufficient to govern the whole country. At best, the choice of president would always be decided by the largest, most populous States with little regard for the smaller ones.

My ilk?

Butt hurt Libs-