Hillary won more votes for President

CM189191

Free said:

CM189191 said:

JC29856 said:

PJ_Soul said:

JC29856 said:

This might help...

I'm sure you're smart enough to understand what people mean when they say "he's not my president". I have faith that you understand what figurative speech is.

Strange....Kinda like how everyone the media included doesn't take trump what trump says seriously (unless it's a hot mic) but takes him literally.

When you make campaign promises, those things are meant to be taken literally (in the most literal sense of the word). If Trump's up there saying what people want to hear just to get elected, that's a con job.

Every. Single. Political candidate for presidency will say what people want to hear to get elected.

fine print: but it's ok when we do. does not apply to 3rd party candidates. this coupon worth 1/100th of a cent.

Free

Stakes for DNC Class Action Lawsuit Increase After Clinton Defeat

The DNC and Debbie Wasserman Schultz violated obligations of neutrality to boost Clinton’s candidacy in the primaries

http://observer.com/2016/11/stakes-for-dnc-class-action-lawsuit-increase-after-clinton-defeat/

The Juggler

CM189191 said:

JC29856 said:

PJ_Soul said:

JC29856 said:

This might help...

I'm sure you're smart enough to understand what people mean when they say "he's not my president". I have faith that you understand what figurative speech is.

Strange....Kinda like how everyone the media included doesn't take trump what trump says seriously (unless it's a hot mic) but takes him literally.

When you make campaign promises, those things are meant to be taken literally (in the most literal sense of the word). If Trump's up there saying what people want to hear just to get elected, that's a con job.

...and this should not surprise any intelligent person. A wall, a big beautiful wall was the main theme of his campaign...hah

JimmyV

2,103,941

bootleg

Clinton gets 2+ million more votes and loses election. Trump gets only 100,000 more votes in PA, MI, and WI combined and wins because of it. I know those are the rules under the electoral college, but it's just a flawed system. Those 100k votes in 3 states end up having so much more weight than votes in other states and now a minority party gets to decide policy that will affect the country for possibly the next 2 decades.

benjs

bootleg said:

Clinton gets 2+ million more votes and loses election. Trump gets only 100,000 more votes in PA, MI, and WI combined and wins because of it. I know those are the rules under the electoral college, but it's just a flawed system. Those 100k votes in 3 states end up having so much more weight than votes in other states and now a minority party gets to decide policy that will affect the country for possibly the next 2 decades.

So mobilize and change it for the next time around, because you can't arbitrarily make a retroactive policy to apply to this past election. This potential has existed literally since the day the Electoral College was formed, and a mentally lazy (or incapable) populace has so far been unable to understand/mobilize sufficiently to have the process changed.

JC29856

JC29856

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

Ledbetterman10

dignin said:

JimmyV said:

JC29856 said:

Hillary Clinton lost the election in the Midwest. Donald Trump won 50 Midwestern electoral votes that went to Barack Obama in 2012 -- Iowa, Wisconsin, Michigan and Ohio -- plus 20 more in Pennsylvania, where the two-thirds of voters beyond metro Philadelphia are Midwestern in culture and concerns. Trump could have lost Florida and still won.

In the popular vote, Clinton came close to equaling Obama's 2012 percentages in the South and not-yet-fully-counted West, and her 4 percent drop in the Northeast cost her no electoral votes. But in the Midwest and Pennsylvania, the Democratic presidential percentage dropped from 54 percent in 2008 and 51 percent in 2012 to 45 percent in 2016.

Yep. There shouldn't be any doubt. This wasn't Comey or Wiki or Sexism or Third Parties. None of those things helped, certainly, but none of them caused this defeat, either. Campaign strategy and messaging, more than anything else, led to Donald Trump.

I don't believe that. She lost a few of those states by really close margins. To say that the FBI, or hacked emails, or sexism, or third parties didn't account for those lost close margins is ignoring a big part of the story.

And to say that campaign strategy didn't account for those lost close margins is ignoring a big part of the story too. Look at the very last night of the campaign. Where was Hillary? She was in Philadelphia, where she was already surely going to get a large portion of the electorate, having what one can describe as a party (complete with Beyoncé). Where was Trump? He was in Lackawanna County in Pennsylvania (the Scranton area) campaigning. Obama got 63% of the vote in Lackawanna County in 2012 and Hillary got only 50% in 2016; technically a narrow win for Hillary, but really, just for making up so much ground, a win for Trump. This is despite both Hillary's grandfather and Joe Biden hailing from Scranton.

Now I'm not saying that one additional campaign stop in a battleground area was the difference. But it does stand as a microcosm for the entire campaign season: Trump campaigning to the bitter end and Hillary pre-maturely celebrating. And I've read that Bill Clinton had suggested to Hillary's camp that they should campaign more in Michigan and Wisconsin but they weren't worried about those states. But what does Bill know. He's only been referred to (by conservatives that hate him, no less) as one of the best politicians ever.

And enough about sexism, it's arguable that Hillary's sex was part of her success. Really, what else did she have going for her other than being a woman? Take a comparable male candidate, that's under federal investigation, that has no charisma, that's being shoved down the voters' throats by the DNC, and he doesn't come close to Hillary's vote total.

In the end, she just didn't inspire enough people. That's why so many democrats stayed home. Or maybe they stayed home because they, like her, thought she had it in the bag. Why wait in line to vote when the result is inevitable? Trump, despite his claims of not being a politician, proved to be the far superior politician. You can criticize the means in which he went about things, the fact that he rarely has a clue what he's talking about, all his lies, his shady business career, etc. and they'd all be valid criticisms (ones that I've made myself). But in the end, like Hillary's previous presidential opponents (Sanders and Obama), he got people passionate about him. Nobody was passionate about Hillary. As I filled in the circle next to her name on election day, it was under the idea of "this is what I should do" rather than "this is what I WANT to do."

HughFreakingDillon

JC29856 said:

who is advocating changing it to popular vote retroactively?

JimmyV

2,128,808

JC29856

JimmyV said:

2,128,808

The post election equivalency to the pre-election 538 posts!

JC29856

HughFreakingDillon said:

JC29856 said:

who is advocating changing it to popular vote retroactively?

Not sure, not saying anyone is, but the popular vote totals and calls for audits are desperate attempts to delegitimize the election and his presidency.

JimmyV

My posting of the "popular vote" total is not a call for an audit nor is it a desperate attempt to do anything. It is simply a fact, one that I believe indicts Clinton and her campaign strategy more than it deligitimizes the Electoral College winner.

HughFreakingDillon

JC29856 said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

JC29856 said:

who is advocating changing it to popular vote retroactively?

Not sure, not saying anyone is, but the popular vote totals and calls for audits are desperate attempts to delegitimize the election and his presidency.

I think the popular vote tallies are more for interests sake, and maybe starts a discussion if the process needs to be changed for future elections. I can't say that it does. I honestly don't know enough about why it is set up that way. I understand the basic premise, but I have never understood why any election isn't popular vote.

even before Trump said so, I stated that you can't change the rules of the game after the game has been finished. I stated that Trump most likely would have had a different campaign strategy had it been the popular vote, which he also said. that's a no brainer. so in a way, the popular vote tally really is meaningless in that respect.

I think you are right, that there are people that are desperate to keep him out of the white house any way possible (Sarah Silverman is having a fucking caniption on twitter). I think that's a bit silly. But I do think you need to make sure the person who was elected is actually sworn in.

Ledbetterman10

JimmyV said:

My posting of the "popular vote" total is not a call for an audit nor is it a desperate attempt to do anything. It is simply a fact, one that I believe indicts Clinton and her campaign strategy more than it deligitimizes the Electoral College winner.

Interesting. I was taking it as you were saying "See! Hillary got more votes. The electoral college is stupid and she should be president!" So you're basically saying the opposite.

JimmyV

Ledbetterman10 said:

JimmyV said:

My posting of the "popular vote" total is not a call for an audit nor is it a desperate attempt to do anything. It is simply a fact, one that I believe indicts Clinton and her campaign strategy more than it deligitimizes the Electoral College winner.

Interesting. I was taking it as you were saying "See! Hillary got more votes. The electoral college is stupid and she should be president!" So you're basically saying the opposite.

As far as I'm saying anything, yes. I'm certainly not happy that Trump is headed to the White House. I do hope (but don't expect) he will lead in a way that reflects how many of us voted for someone other than him. I don't mind the WI, MI and PA votes being confirmed but assuming they are...that's it. Trump won. I will always believe this was avoidable and that a better showing from Democrats could have prevented it. But it happened, it's legitimate, and we need to accept it.

The Juggler

Ledbetterman10 said:

dignin said:

JimmyV said:

JC29856 said:

Hillary Clinton lost the election in the Midwest. Donald Trump won 50 Midwestern electoral votes that went to Barack Obama in 2012 -- Iowa, Wisconsin, Michigan and Ohio -- plus 20 more in Pennsylvania, where the two-thirds of voters beyond metro Philadelphia are Midwestern in culture and concerns. Trump could have lost Florida and still won.

In the popular vote, Clinton came close to equaling Obama's 2012 percentages in the South and not-yet-fully-counted West, and her 4 percent drop in the Northeast cost her no electoral votes. But in the Midwest and Pennsylvania, the Democratic presidential percentage dropped from 54 percent in 2008 and 51 percent in 2012 to 45 percent in 2016.

Yep. There shouldn't be any doubt. This wasn't Comey or Wiki or Sexism or Third Parties. None of those things helped, certainly, but none of them caused this defeat, either. Campaign strategy and messaging, more than anything else, led to Donald Trump.

I don't believe that. She lost a few of those states by really close margins. To say that the FBI, or hacked emails, or sexism, or third parties didn't account for those lost close margins is ignoring a big part of the story.

And to say that campaign strategy didn't account for those lost close margins is ignoring a big part of the story too. Look at the very last night of the campaign. Where was Hillary? She was in Philadelphia, where she was already surely going to get a large portion of the electorate, having what one can describe as a party (complete with Beyoncé). Where was Trump? He was in Lackawanna County in Pennsylvania (the Scranton area) campaigning. Obama got 63% of the vote in Lackawanna County in 2012 and Hillary got only 50% in 2016; technically a narrow win for Hillary, but really, just for making up so much ground, a win for Trump. This is despite both Hillary's grandfather and Joe Biden hailing from Scranton.

Now I'm not saying that one additional campaign stop in a battleground area was the difference. But it does stand as a microcosm for the entire campaign season: Trump campaigning to the bitter end and Hillary pre-maturely celebrating. And I've read that Bill Clinton had suggested to Hillary's camp that they should campaign more in Michigan and Wisconsin but they weren't worried about those states. But what does Bill know. He's only been referred to (by conservatives that hate him, no less) as one of the best politicians ever.

And enough about sexism, it's arguable that Hillary's sex was part of her success. Really, what else did she have going for her other than being a woman? Take a comparable male candidate, that's under federal investigation, that has no charisma, that's being shoved down the voters' throats by the DNC, and he doesn't come close to Hillary's vote total.

In the end, she just didn't inspire enough people. That's why so many democrats stayed home. Or maybe they stayed home because they, like her, thought she had it in the bag. Why wait in line to vote when the result is inevitable? Trump, despite his claims of not being a politician, proved to be the far superior politician. You can criticize the means in which he went about things, the fact that he rarely has a clue what he's talking about, all his lies, his shady business career, etc. and they'd all be valid criticisms (ones that I've made myself). But in the end, like Hillary's previous presidential opponents (Sanders and Obama), he got people passionate about him. Nobody was passionate about Hillary. As I filled in the circle next to her name on election day, it was under the idea of "this is what I should do" rather than "this is what I WANT to do."

I agree with the passion and enthusiasm stuff but disagree about it being a mistake to end her campaign the way she did in Philly. If she ran up the numbers a little more in Philly and surrounding areas, she may have won the state. At that point she was more likely to get more people from her traditional blue area of the state to come out and vote for her than hoping to change some people's minds up in the Scranton area.....despite having some family roots there.

And Philly wasn't the last stop. She ended in NC a few hours later....with Lady Gaga. haha

Gern Blansten

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

JC29856

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

Oooowwwww! GERN-BERN!!!!!!!