Hillary won more votes for President

The Juggler

Gern Blansten said:

JC29856 said:

Audit the interactions

Hillary goes hiking:

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Cw_o0ONWQAATgFG.jpg

Hillary goes to a bookstore:

https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=10208964572925524&set=a.10205158323571669.1073741832.1052313181&type=3

Hillary goes grocery shopping:

https://twitter.com/usweekly/status/802089473672675328/photo/1

https://twitter.com/JackPosobiec/status/802082005433405440/photo/1

you believe everything you see on the internet....unreal

If the "Gateway Pundit" publishes it....it MUST be true.

JimmyV

2,526,184 as of this morning. All while getting blown out in the Electoral College.

CM189191

JimmyV said:

2,526,184 as of this morning. All while getting blown out in the Electoral College.

wonder how that happened?
New Voting Restrictions in Place for 2016 Presidential Election
In 2016, 14 states will have new voting restrictions in place for the first time in a presidential election. The new laws range from strict photo ID requirements to early voting cutbacks to registration restrictions.
Those 14 states are: Alabama, Arizona, Indiana, Kansas, Mississippi, Nebraska, New Hampshire, Ohio, Rhode Island, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, Virginia, and Wisconsin.







Now where have I seen this map before?

JimmyV

Sure, but none of the above was unknown to the campaign going in. These were obstacles to be overcome. All the more reason why the Midwest shouldn't have been taken for granted.

Jason P

JimmyV said:

2,526,184 as of this morning. All while getting blown out in the Electoral College.

I was saying all along that it really boiled down to six states while everyone was laughing at the notion of the clown winning. And laugh everyone did. Downfall of the GOP they declared! Hillary will win in the biggest landslide ever! No way Trump can win! Laughable!



Minnesota, Wisconsin, Michigan, Ohio, Penn, Florida.

Trump won five of those states, thus our future COTUS.

JC29856

Throughout our great nation regardless of party affiliation the voting laws 2016 election were different depending on who you voted for.

Gern Blansten

Basically 108,000 votes decided the election. That was Trump's margin of victory in PA, WI, MI

Yet Clinton received 2.5 million votes more than Trump. Doesn't make sense.

g under p

Gern Blansten said:

Basically 108,000 votes decided the election. That was Trump's margin of victory in PA, WI, MI

Yet Clinton received 2.5 million votes more than Trump. Doesn't make sense.

Lost FLORIDA by less than 200k, the whole thing is weird. However, let's see how PE Trump will do he has all the power he needs and the economy is in far better shape than in 2008.

Peace

JimmyV

Jason P said:

JimmyV said:

2,526,184 as of this morning. All while getting blown out in the Electoral College.

I was saying all along that it really boiled down to six states while everyone was laughing at the notion of the clown winning. And laugh everyone did. Downfall of the GOP they declared! Hillary will win in the biggest landslide ever! No way Trump can win! Laughable!



Minnesota, Wisconsin, Michigan, Ohio, Penn, Florida.

Trump won five of those states, thus our future COTUS.

I can't deny it. I was one of those people.

bootlegger10

Gern Blansten said:

Basically 108,000 votes decided the election. That was Trump's margin of victory in PA, WI, MI

Yet Clinton received 2.5 million votes more than Trump. Doesn't make sense.

If you exclude California, Trump wins by 1.5 million votes. I'm not saying we shouldn't use the popular vote, but to say 108,000 votes in three states shouldn't decide the election, you can also easily say the cities of LA, San Francisco and San Diego shouldn't also decide the election.

2.5 million sounds like a lot, but when compared to 300 million people in this country it is an inconsequential number from perspective of a mandate or decisive win.

Gern Blansten

bootlegger10 said:

Gern Blansten said:

Basically 108,000 votes decided the election. That was Trump's margin of victory in PA, WI, MI

Yet Clinton received 2.5 million votes more than Trump. Doesn't make sense.

If you exclude California, Trump wins by 1.5 million votes. I'm not saying we shouldn't use the popular vote, but to say 108,000 votes in three states shouldn't decide the election, you can also easily say the cities of LA, San Francisco and San Diego shouldn't also decide the election.

2.5 million sounds like a lot, but when compared to 300 million people in this country it is an inconsequential number from perspective of a mandate or decisive win.

That doesn't make any sense. You can't remove CA without removing TX

SHe got roughly 48% of the vote to his 46%

JimmyV

Once you start removing states you can do whatever you want. You can make the math say almost anything you want it to.

Gern Blansten

JimmyV said:

Once you start removing states you can do whatever you want. You can make the math say almost anything you want it to.

Right...point being it doesn't make sense to do that. Look at what it is which is what I presented.

JC29856

Still having checkers and chess discussions?

bootlegger10

I wasn't the one saying 108,000 votes in three states decided the election, so don't get all high and mighty about math. I was making a comparable argument to the "three state" comment on the electoral college by talking about the "3 city" impact on the popular vote.

It is a big country. I like that you have to campaign hard in as many states as possible to make the country happy and not just people in LA, Chicago, Boston and New York (when the rest of the country grows the food and manufactures the products).

JC29856

bootlegger10 said:

I wasn't the one saying 108,000 votes in three states decided the election, so don't get all high and mighty about math. I was making a comparable argument to the "three state" comment on the electoral college by talking about the "3 city" impact on the popular vote.

It is a big country. I like that you have to campaign hard in as many states as possible to make the country happy and not just people in LA, Chicago, Boston and New York (when the rest of the country grows the food and manufactures the products).

Boomshockalocka!

JimmyV

Gern Blansten said:

JimmyV said:

Once you start removing states you can do whatever you want. You can make the math say almost anything you want it to.

Right...point being it doesn't make sense to do that. Look at what it is which is what I presented.

I hear you and I don't disagree.

bootlegger10

Gern Blansten said:

bootlegger10 said:

Gern Blansten said:

Basically 108,000 votes decided the election. That was Trump's margin of victory in PA, WI, MI

Yet Clinton received 2.5 million votes more than Trump. Doesn't make sense.

If you exclude California, Trump wins by 1.5 million votes. I'm not saying we shouldn't use the popular vote, but to say 108,000 votes in three states shouldn't decide the election, you can also easily say the cities of LA, San Francisco and San Diego shouldn't also decide the election.

2.5 million sounds like a lot, but when compared to 300 million people in this country it is an inconsequential number from perspective of a mandate or decisive win.

That doesn't make any sense. You can't remove CA without removing TX

SHe got roughly 48% of the vote to his 46%

Okay, take Texas and California out and Trump still wins the popular vote. Obviously Clinton won the popular vote, but you can look at it that Trump won the popular vote if you looked at only 49 of the 50 states. Just making a point that the popular vote results in a skewed result too if you look at the USA as a collection of states that have different economic generators and beliefs.

bootlegger10

The popular vote and Electoral College will usually result in the same winner. WHen they don't it means you have a very close race which is near 50/50. So regardless of what method is used you will end up with a candidate who 50% of the voters didn't vote for. You can make arguments for each method.

JimmyV

Trump won the election because he won more states and because he won electoral votes in every region except the West Coast. He did not win because the election was close. This wasn't a close election. Millions more voters chose someone other than him than marked their ballots for him. Several states were close. The election was not close.

Free

JimmyV said:

Trump won the election because he won more states and because he won electoral votes in every region except the West Coast. He did not win because the election was close. This wasn't a close election. Millions more voters chose someone other than him than marked their ballots for him. Several states were close. The election was not close.

Or didn't choose a presidential candidate at all and only voted down ballot. Which thousands did.

JimmyV

Free said:

JimmyV said:

Trump won the election because he won more states and because he won electoral votes in every region except the West Coast. He did not win because the election was close. This wasn't a close election. Millions more voters chose someone other than him than marked their ballots for him. Several states were close. The election was not close.

Or didn't choose a presidential candidate at all and only voted down ballot. Which thousands did.

Yes. This too.

HughFreakingDillon

Gern Blansten said:

JimmyV said:

Once you start removing states you can do whatever you want. You can make the math say almost anything you want it to.

Right...point being it doesn't make sense to do that. Look at what it is which is what I presented.

but arguing popular vs electoral is the same thing as removing states. I agree, it should be popular. but it isn't. never has been.

if trump lost electoral but won popular, can you honestly say that you'd be here saying "well, I'm glad Hillary won, but the electoral is stupid; Trump should be prez"?

bootlegger10

JimmyV said:

Trump won the election because he won more states and because he won electoral votes in every region except the West Coast. He did not win because the election was close. This wasn't a close election. Millions more voters chose someone other than him than marked their ballots for him. Several states were close. The election was not close.

48-46 isn't close? What is your definition of close? A tie?

Trump won 2,600 of 3,100 counties (84%). This wasn't a landslide to Hillary. Don't even begin to pretend.

unsung

HughFreakingDillon said:

Gern Blansten said:

JimmyV said:

Once you start removing states you can do whatever you want. You can make the math say almost anything you want it to.

Right...point being it doesn't make sense to do that. Look at what it is which is what I presented.

but arguing popular vs electoral is the same thing as removing states. I agree, it should be popular. but it isn't. never has been.

if trump lost electoral but won popular, can you honestly say that you'd be here saying "well, I'm glad Hillary won, but the electoral is stupid; Trump should be prez"?

It's not. The States created the Federal Govt, not the other way around.

Gern Blansten

bootlegger10 said:

I wasn't the one saying 108,000 votes in three states decided the election, so don't get all high and mighty about math. I was making a comparable argument to the "three state" comment on the electoral college by talking about the "3 city" impact on the popular vote.

It is a big country. I like that you have to campaign hard in as many states as possible to make the country happy and not just people in LA, Chicago, Boston and New York (when the rest of the country grows the food and manufactures the products).

HOw many campaign visits did Clinton make to CA?

Gern Blansten

HughFreakingDillon said:

Gern Blansten said:

JimmyV said:

Once you start removing states you can do whatever you want. You can make the math say almost anything you want it to.

Right...point being it doesn't make sense to do that. Look at what it is which is what I presented.

but arguing popular vs electoral is the same thing as removing states. I agree, it should be popular. but it isn't. never has been.

if trump lost electoral but won popular, can you honestly say that you'd be here saying "well, I'm glad Hillary won, but the electoral is stupid; Trump should be prez"?

I have never said that the EC was stupid. I'm just saying that it's really odd that those three states (PA, MI, WI) were the only three that the polls got wrong. The popular vote % is right where the national polls said it would be.

Gern Blansten

oh....and now my 108,000 figure is down to about 80,000....Philadelphia updated their vote totals

bootlegger10

Gern Blansten said:

bootlegger10 said:

I wasn't the one saying 108,000 votes in three states decided the election, so don't get all high and mighty about math. I was making a comparable argument to the "three state" comment on the electoral college by talking about the "3 city" impact on the popular vote.

It is a big country. I like that you have to campaign hard in as many states as possible to make the country happy and not just people in LA, Chicago, Boston and New York (when the rest of the country grows the food and manufactures the products).

HOw many campaign visits did Clinton make to CA?

I don't know. California was a guaranteed victory for her. No need to ramp up the vote there like in Philadelphia.

JimmyV

bootlegger10 said:

JimmyV said:

Trump won the election because he won more states and because he won electoral votes in every region except the West Coast. He did not win because the election was close. This wasn't a close election. Millions more voters chose someone other than him than marked their ballots for him. Several states were close. The election was not close.

48-46 isn't close? What is your definition of close? A tie?

Trump won 2,600 of 3,100 counties (84%). This wasn't a landslide to Hillary. Don't even begin to pretend.

2000 was close. Gore narrowly won the popular vote and if any one of a handful of states had gone the other way he would have carried the EC too. That is how I would define close. This election does not qualify, in my opinion. We may just disagree.