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

[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.

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

You want to know what it means?

It means that X number of people wanted candidate H and Y number of people wanted candidate T, and X is significantly greater than Y. Therefore it's like a poll, with a crucial difference --- a real poll has both margins of error, and respondents who misrepresent themselves. A vote tally has neither. It's dead-on balls accurate. It's literal.

Therefore we have (will have when it's done) a precise measure of exactly how big the disparity is --- and hence the division -- between the Got-what-they-wanteds and the Didn't-get-what-they wanteds.

Aside from questioning the system that brought it about, it's a measure of national division. When that disparity is at this record level, we ignore it at our peril.

 

[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.

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.

You want to know what it means?

It means that X number of people wanted candidate H and Y number of people wanted candidate T, and X is significantly greater than Y. Therefore it's like a poll, with a crucial difference --- a real poll has both margins of error, and respondents who misrepresent themselves. A vote tally has neither. It's dead-on balls accurate. It's literal.

Therefore we have (will have when it's done) a precise measure of exactly how big the disparity is --- and hence the division -- between the Got-what-they-wanteds and the Didn't-get-what-they wanteds.

Aside from questioning the system that brought it about, it's a measure of national division. When that disparity is at this record level, we ignore it at our peril.

Actually no, it's far from an exact measure of the disparity. Less than 60% of eleible voters even vote. So it can hardly be considered an exact measure of the will of all the eligible voters. But it's cute you think that just the same.

 

[ColonelAngus]

...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.

It's like the team that lost the Super Bowl claiming they really won because they scored more points in the regular season.

 

[Pogo]

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.

You want to know what it means?

It means that X number of people wanted candidate H and Y number of people wanted candidate T, and X is significantly greater than Y. Therefore it's like a poll, with a crucial difference --- a real poll has both margins of error, and respondents who misrepresent themselves. A vote tally has neither. It's dead-on balls accurate. It's literal.

Therefore we have (will have when it's done) a precise measure of exactly how big the disparity is --- and hence the division -- between the Got-what-they-wanteds and the Didn't-get-what-they wanteds.

Aside from questioning the system that brought it about, it's a measure of national division. When that disparity is at this record level, we ignore it at our peril.

Actually no, it's far from an exact measure of the disparity. Less than 60% of eleible voters even vote. So it can hardly be considered an exact measure of the will of all the eligible voters. But it's cute you think that just the same.

I'm afraid it is, Twinkles, because it's a count of the votes. Those eligible who didn't vote, count zero. That means for neither side. You don't get to just walk in and assume them.

You have the votes you have, and the count of those votes is what it is -- and the gap is currently about 1 2/3 million, more than the entire population of Idaho and ten other states. That's a sizeable chunk of humanity.

However you do raise another problem the Electrical College generates, that being that under 60% of edible voters participated. That's what happens when you remove reasons for people to vote ---- they don't.

So no, you don't get an exact measure of how many people wanted candidate A or B ---- you get an exact measure of how many voters did. And I see that I wrote "people" in the previous post. That was under the assumption that you knew I mean people who voted.

 

[Pogo]

...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.

It's like the team that lost the Super Bowl claiming they really won because they scored more points in the regular season.

Yanno if you just keep on whining, stomping your feet, holding your breath and maybe strike a Shirley Temple pout pose, maybe you can get this thread turned around to where you want it to go, since you can't handle where it actually is.

You keep tryin'.

 

[BuckToothMoron]

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.

You want to know what it means?

It means that X number of people wanted candidate H and Y number of people wanted candidate T, and X is significantly greater than Y. Therefore it's like a poll, with a crucial difference --- a real poll has both margins of error, and respondents who misrepresent themselves. A vote tally has neither. It's dead-on balls accurate. It's literal.

Therefore we have (will have when it's done) a precise measure of exactly how big the disparity is --- and hence the division -- between the Got-what-they-wanteds and the Didn't-get-what-they wanteds.

Aside from questioning the system that brought it about, it's a measure of national division. When that disparity is at this record level, we ignore it at our peril.

Actually no, it's far from an exact measure of the disparity. Less than 60% of eleible voters even vote. So it can hardly be considered an exact measure of the will of all the eligible voters. But it's cute you think that just the same.

I'm afraid it is, Twinkles, because it's a count of the votes. Those eligible who didn't vote, count zero. That means for neither side. You don't get to just walk in and assume them.

You have the votes you have, and the count of those votes is what it is -- and the gap is currently about 1 2/3 million, more than the entire population of Idaho and ten other states. That's a sizeable chunk of humanity.

However you do raise another problem the Electrical College generates, that being that under 60% of edible voters participated. That's what happens when you remove reasons for people to vote ---- they don't.

So no, you don't get an exact measure of how many people wanted candidate A or B ---- you get an exact measure of how many voters did. And I see that I wrote "people" in the previous post. That was under the assumption that you knew I mean people who voted.

Actually snowflake, the only gap that matters is the electoral count, and we all know what happened there. Try some Prep H on that ass ache!

 

[Pogo]

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.

You want to know what it means?

It means that X number of people wanted candidate H and Y number of people wanted candidate T, and X is significantly greater than Y. Therefore it's like a poll, with a crucial difference --- a real poll has both margins of error, and respondents who misrepresent themselves. A vote tally has neither. It's dead-on balls accurate. It's literal.

Therefore we have (will have when it's done) a precise measure of exactly how big the disparity is --- and hence the division -- between the Got-what-they-wanteds and the Didn't-get-what-they wanteds.

Aside from questioning the system that brought it about, it's a measure of national division. When that disparity is at this record level, we ignore it at our peril.

Actually no, it's far from an exact measure of the disparity. Less than 60% of eleible voters even vote. So it can hardly be considered an exact measure of the will of all the eligible voters. But it's cute you think that just the same.

I'm afraid it is, Twinkles, because it's a count of the votes. Those eligible who didn't vote, count zero. That means for neither side. You don't get to just walk in and assume them.

You have the votes you have, and the count of those votes is what it is -- and the gap is currently about 1 2/3 million, more than the entire population of Idaho and ten other states. That's a sizeable chunk of humanity.

However you do raise another problem the Electrical College generates, that being that under 60% of edible voters participated. That's what happens when you remove reasons for people to vote ---- they don't.

So no, you don't get an exact measure of how many people wanted candidate A or B ---- you get an exact measure of how many voters did. And I see that I wrote "people" in the previous post. That was under the assumption that you knew I mean people who voted.

Actually snowflake, the only gap that matters is the electoral count, and we all know what happened there. Try some Prep H on that ass ache!

Hey Twinkie, you asked why the PV matters, and you got your answer. Don't like it? Tough titty.

And this just in a million years ago --- nothing "happened there". It's in the future, a month away.

 

[BuckToothMoron]

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

You want to know what it means?

It means that X number of people wanted candidate H and Y number of people wanted candidate T, and X is significantly greater than Y. Therefore it's like a poll, with a crucial difference --- a real poll has both margins of error, and respondents who misrepresent themselves. A vote tally has neither. It's dead-on balls accurate. It's literal.

Therefore we have (will have when it's done) a precise measure of exactly how big the disparity is --- and hence the division -- between the Got-what-they-wanteds and the Didn't-get-what-they wanteds.

Aside from questioning the system that brought it about, it's a measure of national division. When that disparity is at this record level, we ignore it at our peril.

Actually no, it's far from an exact measure of the disparity. Less than 60% of eleible voters even vote. So it can hardly be considered an exact measure of the will of all the eligible voters. But it's cute you think that just the same.

I'm afraid it is, Twinkles, because it's a count of the votes. Those eligible who didn't vote, count zero. That means for neither side. You don't get to just walk in and assume them.

You have the votes you have, and the count of those votes is what it is -- and the gap is currently about 1 2/3 million, more than the entire population of Idaho and ten other states. That's a sizeable chunk of humanity.

However you do raise another problem the Electrical College generates, that being that under 60% of edible voters participated. That's what happens when you remove reasons for people to vote ---- they don't.

So no, you don't get an exact measure of how many people wanted candidate A or B ---- you get an exact measure of how many voters did. And I see that I wrote "people" in the previous post. That was under the assumption that you knew I mean people who voted.

Actually snowflake, the only gap that matters is the electoral count, and we all know what happened there. Try some Prep H on that ass ache!

Hey Twinkie, you asked why the PV matters, and you got your answer. Don't like it? Tough titty.

And this just in a million years ago --- nothing "happened there". It's in the future, a month away.

You Libs think you can assume what the results would be if the popular vote mattered. You are certain that the results would have been the same if the popular vote would have been used to elect the president. It's why you people are generally more suited to being artist, writers and professors rather than scientist or engineers. You aren't generally good at understanding that changing one factor in a system can effect the results significantly. How many people in California, Oregon or Washington didn't vote because they knew the results were already determined? You don't know, nor does anyone else. You lost, your ass hurts so bad you won't be able to sit down until Trump leaves office, and you want to make sure everybody else is as miserable as you are. Ain't happening here sport. I would be happy either way. Bwahahahahaha!

 

[Pogo]

You want to know what it means?

It means that X number of people wanted candidate H and Y number of people wanted candidate T, and X is significantly greater than Y. Therefore it's like a poll, with a crucial difference --- a real poll has both margins of error, and respondents who misrepresent themselves. A vote tally has neither. It's dead-on balls accurate. It's literal.

Therefore we have (will have when it's done) a precise measure of exactly how big the disparity is --- and hence the division -- between the Got-what-they-wanteds and the Didn't-get-what-they wanteds.

Aside from questioning the system that brought it about, it's a measure of national division. When that disparity is at this record level, we ignore it at our peril.

Actually no, it's far from an exact measure of the disparity. Less than 60% of eleible voters even vote. So it can hardly be considered an exact measure of the will of all the eligible voters. But it's cute you think that just the same.

I'm afraid it is, Twinkles, because it's a count of the votes. Those eligible who didn't vote, count zero. That means for neither side. You don't get to just walk in and assume them.

You have the votes you have, and the count of those votes is what it is -- and the gap is currently about 1 2/3 million, more than the entire population of Idaho and ten other states. That's a sizeable chunk of humanity.

However you do raise another problem the Electrical College generates, that being that under 60% of edible voters participated. That's what happens when you remove reasons for people to vote ---- they don't.

So no, you don't get an exact measure of how many people wanted candidate A or B ---- you get an exact measure of how many voters did. And I see that I wrote "people" in the previous post. That was under the assumption that you knew I mean people who voted.

Actually snowflake, the only gap that matters is the electoral count, and we all know what happened there. Try some Prep H on that ass ache!

Hey Twinkie, you asked why the PV matters, and you got your answer. Don't like it? Tough titty.

And this just in a million years ago --- nothing "happened there". It's in the future, a month away.

You Libs think you can assume what the results would be if the popular vote mattered. You are certain that the results would have been the same if the popular vote would have been used to elect the president. It's why you people are generally more suited to being artist, writers and professors rather than scientist or engineers. You aren't generally good at understanding that changing one factor in a system can effect the results significantly.

I don't have any idea what the results would be if, say the EC voted proportional to the PV, if that's what you're trying to say, but it could be easily worked out if someone wants to crunch the numbers for all 50 states. It's got nothing to do with anything we have here.

But again, you asked what the PV means, and you got your answer. Now you're gonna what, stomp your feet and hold your breath 'til you turn blue?

Hey, if you don't want the answer ----- don't ask the question Gummo. Ain't rocket surgery.

How many people in California, Oregon or Washington didn't vote because they knew the results were already determined? You don't know, nor does anyone else.

Zackly. And I've been beating that drum here for the last year. That's one of the EC's major faults. As I posted repeatedly on these pages, I had a vote because I happen to be in a "battleground" state which is a complete bullshit term as is "red state" and "blue wall". My relatives in Mississippi and Washington and Texas, however, did not have a vote. That's the starting point.

Good to see you agree, but we already did this. I understand the memory is the second thing to go.

You lost, your ass hurts so bad you won't be able to sit down until Trump leaves office, and you want to make sure everybody else is as miserable as you are. Ain't happening here sport. I would be happy either way.

"Lost" what, Danth? You think this is some kind of 'game'? That's so cute. Careful you don't give yourself a shoulder separation patting yourself on the back but again ---- you got your answer, like it or lump it.

 

[DigitalDrifter]

As I've been saying over and over, if the goal was to see who could amass the most votes, then strategies for presidential campaigns would be much different, and the vote total would likely be different.

The Trump strategy was to concentrate on the swing states, and forget about states like California where he had no chance. It was the winning strategy.

In fact if you remove California from the equation, Trump wins both electoral and popular votes and has a much better balance of the nation.

 

[BuckToothMoron]

Actually no, it's far from an exact measure of the disparity. Less than 60% of eleible voters even vote. So it can hardly be considered an exact measure of the will of all the eligible voters. But it's cute you think that just the same.

I'm afraid it is, Twinkles, because it's a count of the votes. Those eligible who didn't vote, count zero. That means for neither side. You don't get to just walk in and assume them.

You have the votes you have, and the count of those votes is what it is -- and the gap is currently about 1 2/3 million, more than the entire population of Idaho and ten other states. That's a sizeable chunk of humanity.

However you do raise another problem the Electrical College generates, that being that under 60% of edible voters participated. That's what happens when you remove reasons for people to vote ---- they don't.

So no, you don't get an exact measure of how many people wanted candidate A or B ---- you get an exact measure of how many voters did. And I see that I wrote "people" in the previous post. That was under the assumption that you knew I mean people who voted.

Actually snowflake, the only gap that matters is the electoral count, and we all know what happened there. Try some Prep H on that ass ache!

Hey Twinkie, you asked why the PV matters, and you got your answer. Don't like it? Tough titty.

And this just in a million years ago --- nothing "happened there". It's in the future, a month away.

You Libs think you can assume what the results would be if the popular vote mattered. You are certain that the results would have been the same if the popular vote would have been used to elect the president. It's why you people are generally more suited to being artist, writers and professors rather than scientist or engineers. You aren't generally good at understanding that changing one factor in a system can effect the results significantly.

I don't have any idea what the results would be if, say the EC voted proportional to the PV, if that's what you're trying to say, but it could be easily worked out if someone wants to crunch the numbers for all 50 states. It's got nothing to do with anything we have here.

But again, you asked what the PV means, and you got your answer. Now you're gonna what, stomp your feet and hold your breath 'til you turn blue?

Hey, if you don't want the answer ----- don't ask the question Gummo. Ain't rocket surgery.

How many people in California, Oregon or Washington didn't vote because they knew the results were already determined? You don't know, nor does anyone else.

Zackly. And I've been beating that drum here for the last year. That's one of the EC's major faults. As I posted repeatedly on these pages, I had a vote because I happen to be in a "battleground" state which is a complete bullshit term as is "red state" and "blue wall". My relatives in Mississippi and Washington and Texas, however, did not have a vote. That's the starting point.

Good to see you agree, but we already did this. I understand the memory is the second thing to go.

You lost, your ass hurts so bad you won't be able to sit down until Trump leaves office, and you want to make sure everybody else is as miserable as you are. Ain't happening here sport. I would be happy either way.

"Lost" what, Danth? You think this is some kind of 'game'? That's so cute. Careful you don't give yourself a shoulder separation patting yourself on the back but again ---- you got your answer, like it or lump it.

Stomp my feet until blue, hahahahahahaha. We won! Maybe in glee because the socialist bulldyke is gone. PV means nothing, never has, never will. It is a statistic sighted by the losers, so look in the mirror and you will see who those people are...bwhahahahhahahhahaha....loser.

 

[Pogo]

As I've been saying over and over, if the goal was to see who could amass the most votes, then strategies for presidential campaigns would be much different, and the vote total would likely be different.

The Trump strategy was to concentrate on the swing states, and forget about states like California where he had no chance. It was the winning strategy.

In fact if you remove California from the equation, Trump wins both electoral and popular votes and has a much better balance of the nation.

And if you remove Texas...
--- and if you remove the Cubs' runs in the top of the tenth, they don't win the Series. Means nothing. You don't remove California, you don't remove Texas, and you don't remove runs scored in the top of the 10th.

Obviously if the process worked differently then the campaigns would too. That's irrelevant. Except that it would force candies to go places they don't bother to now, and there's nothing wrong with that.

 

[Pogo]

I'm afraid it is, Twinkles, because it's a count of the votes. Those eligible who didn't vote, count zero. That means for neither side. You don't get to just walk in and assume them.

You have the votes you have, and the count of those votes is what it is -- and the gap is currently about 1 2/3 million, more than the entire population of Idaho and ten other states. That's a sizeable chunk of humanity.

However you do raise another problem the Electrical College generates, that being that under 60% of edible voters participated. That's what happens when you remove reasons for people to vote ---- they don't.

So no, you don't get an exact measure of how many people wanted candidate A or B ---- you get an exact measure of how many voters did. And I see that I wrote "people" in the previous post. That was under the assumption that you knew I mean people who voted.

Actually snowflake, the only gap that matters is the electoral count, and we all know what happened there. Try some Prep H on that ass ache!

Hey Twinkie, you asked why the PV matters, and you got your answer. Don't like it? Tough titty.

And this just in a million years ago --- nothing "happened there". It's in the future, a month away.

You Libs think you can assume what the results would be if the popular vote mattered. You are certain that the results would have been the same if the popular vote would have been used to elect the president. It's why you people are generally more suited to being artist, writers and professors rather than scientist or engineers. You aren't generally good at understanding that changing one factor in a system can effect the results significantly.

I don't have any idea what the results would be if, say the EC voted proportional to the PV, if that's what you're trying to say, but it could be easily worked out if someone wants to crunch the numbers for all 50 states. It's got nothing to do with anything we have here.

But again, you asked what the PV means, and you got your answer. Now you're gonna what, stomp your feet and hold your breath 'til you turn blue?

Hey, if you don't want the answer ----- don't ask the question Gummo. Ain't rocket surgery.

How many people in California, Oregon or Washington didn't vote because they knew the results were already determined? You don't know, nor does anyone else.

Zackly. And I've been beating that drum here for the last year. That's one of the EC's major faults. As I posted repeatedly on these pages, I had a vote because I happen to be in a "battleground" state which is a complete bullshit term as is "red state" and "blue wall". My relatives in Mississippi and Washington and Texas, however, did not have a vote. That's the starting point.

Good to see you agree, but we already did this. I understand the memory is the second thing to go.

You lost, your ass hurts so bad you won't be able to sit down until Trump leaves office, and you want to make sure everybody else is as miserable as you are. Ain't happening here sport. I would be happy either way.

"Lost" what, Danth? You think this is some kind of 'game'? That's so cute. Careful you don't give yourself a shoulder separation patting yourself on the back but again ---- you got your answer, like it or lump it.

Stomp my feet until blue, hahahahahahaha. We won! Maybe in glee because the socialist bulldyke is gone. PV means nothing, never has, never will. It is a statistic sighted by the losers, so look in the mirror and you will see who those people are...bwhahahahhahahhahaha....loser.

QED.

 

[FA_Q2]

As I've been saying over and over, if the goal was to see who could amass the most votes, then strategies for presidential campaigns would be much different, and the vote total would likely be different.

The Trump strategy was to concentrate on the swing states, and forget about states like California where he had no chance. It was the winning strategy.

In fact if you remove California from the equation, Trump wins both electoral and popular votes and has a much better balance of the nation.

And if you remove Texas...
--- and if you remove the Cubs' runs in the top of the tenth, they don't win the Series. Means nothing. You don't remove California, you don't remove Texas, and you don't remove runs scored in the top of the 10th.

Obviously if the process worked differently then the campaigns would too. That's irrelevant. Except that it would force candies to go places they don't bother to now, and there's nothing wrong with that.

It really is not irrelevant as you are trying to assign a value or meaning to the PV where there really is none.

The PV does not have real meaning because it was never a real PV when everyone voting was operating under the current rules.

 

[FA_Q2]

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

It does not. Then again, the election system that we have in place and have had over the life of this country never had this intention.

The federal government is created through the will of the STATES (which is a reflection of the people in those states) and has never been about a voter in CA vs a voter in WY. You and others may want the election for the president to reflect this BUT claiming that a voter in one state is over/under represented in the election is irrelevant. The election is not based on a single voter but based on states instead.

 

[NYcarbineer]

If the popular vote doesn't matter,

why have you RWnuts been pissing and moaning about voter ID for years?

 

[FA_Q2]

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.

No, Trump did not have a media advantage - he CREATED that advantage with outrageous rhetoric that he constantly spewed.

One thing that Trump seems to understand very well is the media and he used that understanding quite well. I am surprised, as many others are, that media attention did not hurt more than it helped considering the massive negative attention that it drew but I guess the old adage sticks, the worst coverage is no coverage.

 

[Pogo]

No, Trump did not have a media advantage - he CREATED that advantage with outrageous rhetoric that he constantly spewed.

That's the same thing stated twice with the word "no" in front of one of them.

One thing that Trump seems to understand very well is the media and he used that understanding quite well. I am surprised, as many others are, that media attention did not hurt more than it helped considering the massive negative attention that it drew but I guess the old adage sticks, the worst coverage is no coverage.

Absolutely. If there's one thing he definitely IS an unparalleled expert on it's Getting Attention, which is of course the entire quest of his whole life. As the saying goes, 'the only thing worse than being talked about is not being talked about'.

Now if mass media, and the general public, were to simply ignore him and decline to freely give that attention he continuously craves, he'd be crushed. And he's admitted that himself.