2016: Conservatism WON the presidential popular vote

[TheGreatGatsby]

Conservative Republican: 45.95%
Conservative Libertarian: 3.28%
Conservative Independent (McMullin): 0.53%
Conservative Constitution: 0.15%

Conservative Total: 49.91%

Liberal Democrat: 48.04%
Liberal Green: 1.06%

Liberal Total: 49.10%

Even with all the illegals (and felons) voting, liberals still lost the total popular vote; and this narrative that Hillary won the popular vote is superficial, phony nonsense like everything else coming from the liberal establishment.

 

[candycorn]

Ms. Clinton got more votes than anyone else.

 

[TheGreatGatsby]

Ms. Clinton got more votes than anyone else.

Yes, but if the election were about that; those voting for other conservative candidates may well have voted for Trump. And clearly we see that your agenda is not supported by a majority as well.

 

[flacaltenn]

Ms. Clinton got more votes than anyone else.

... more than any other SINGLE candidate. However, her pop vote margin over Trump was about 1/3 of the 3rd party/independent vote that voted AGAINST her. This election was determined, not quite by conservatives as it says in the OP, but by the rapidly growing independent/3rd party sector of the electorate. In fact, probably THIS YEAR, the number of voters declaring independence from 2 tribal brand name parties will reach a landmark of being BIGGER than both the Dem and Rep faithful put together.

Don't discount that percentage of votes that went for NEITHER candidate. It's the future of American politics.

 

[candycorn]

Ms. Clinton got more votes than anyone else.

... more than any other SINGLE candidate. However, her pop vote margin over Trump was about 1/3 of the 3rd party/independent vote that voted AGAINST her. This election was determined, not quite by conservatives as it says in the OP, but by the rapidly growing independent/3rd party sector of the electorate. In fact, probably THIS YEAR, the number of voters declaring independence from 2 tribal brand name parties will reach a landmark of being BIGGER than both the Dem and Rep faithful put together.

Don't discount that percentage of votes that went for NEITHER candidate. It's the future of American politics.

Or the growing number of RV’s that simply DNV.

 

[BULLDOG]

Ms. Clinton got more votes than anyone else.

Yes, but if the election were about that; those voting for other conservative candidates may well have voted for Trump. And clearly we see that your agenda is not supported by a majority as well.

If. if. If. if. Your clown lucked out, and you want to act like he legitimately won. He' will be president, but you will never be able to say the majority of the country wanted that.

 

[TheGreatGatsby]

Ms. Clinton got more votes than anyone else.

... more than any other SINGLE candidate. However, her pop vote margin over Trump was about 1/3 of the 3rd party/independent vote that voted AGAINST her. This election was determined, not quite by conservatives as it says in the OP, but by the rapidly growing independent/3rd party sector of the electorate. In fact, probably THIS YEAR, the number of voters declaring independence from 2 tribal brand name parties will reach a landmark of being BIGGER than both the Dem and Rep faithful put together.

Don't discount that percentage of votes that went for NEITHER candidate. It's the future of American politics.

Okay, but say it had came down to a runoff between two candidates; the data shows that it wouldn't have been in the bag for Hillary. My overarching point is that the Hillary winning the popular vote by 2.5 percent is superficial if not just outright phony.

 

[flacaltenn]

Ms. Clinton got more votes than anyone else.

... more than any other SINGLE candidate. However, her pop vote margin over Trump was about 1/3 of the 3rd party/independent vote that voted AGAINST her. This election was determined, not quite by conservatives as it says in the OP, but by the rapidly growing independent/3rd party sector of the electorate. In fact, probably THIS YEAR, the number of voters declaring independence from 2 tribal brand name parties will reach a landmark of being BIGGER than both the Dem and Rep faithful put together.

Don't discount that percentage of votes that went for NEITHER candidate. It's the future of American politics.

Or the growing number of RV’s that simply DNV.

That's an artifact of having 2 brand name DEFECTIVE, entitled, and meglomaniac candidates. And a rejection of clusterfuck that the DemReps turning our country's political contests into.

 

[TheGreatGatsby]

Ms. Clinton got more votes than anyone else.

Yes, but if the election were about that; those voting for other conservative candidates may well have voted for Trump. And clearly we see that your agenda is not supported by a majority as well.

If. if. If. if. Your clown lucked out, and you want to act like he legitimately won. He' will be president, but you will never be able to say the majority of the country wanted that.

Trump did legitimately win. The outcome is not in disrepute. And my point would be that it could be argued that ultimately more people wanted Trump than Hillary. If we're counting only legal citizens, then the picture becomes clearer still yet.

 

[BULLDOG]

Ms. Clinton got more votes than anyone else.

... more than any other SINGLE candidate. However, her pop vote margin over Trump was about 1/3 of the 3rd party/independent vote that voted AGAINST her. This election was determined, not quite by conservatives as it says in the OP, but by the rapidly growing independent/3rd party sector of the electorate. In fact, probably THIS YEAR, the number of voters declaring independence from 2 tribal brand name parties will reach a landmark of being BIGGER than both the Dem and Rep faithful put together.

Don't discount that percentage of votes that went for NEITHER candidate. It's the future of American politics.

Okay, but say it had came down to a runoff between two candidates; the data shows that it wouldn't have been in the bag for Hillary. My overarching point is that the Hillary winning the popular vote by 2.5 percent is superficial if not just outright phony.

3 million more votes is not superficial, and not phony. The country didn't want Trump as president

 

[BULLDOG]

Ms. Clinton got more votes than anyone else.

Yes, but if the election were about that; those voting for other conservative candidates may well have voted for Trump. And clearly we see that your agenda is not supported by a majority as well.

If. if. If. if. Your clown lucked out, and you want to act like he legitimately won. He' will be president, but you will never be able to say the majority of the country wanted that.

Trump did legitimately win. The outcome is not in disrepute. And my point would be that it could be argued that ultimately more people wanted Trump than Hillary. If we're counting only legal citizens, then the picture becomes clearer still yet.

Still whining about imaginary illegal citizens voting. Come up with proof of more than a tiny fraction of a percent, and you might have a point.

 

[TheGreatGatsby]

Ms. Clinton got more votes than anyone else.

... more than any other SINGLE candidate. However, her pop vote margin over Trump was about 1/3 of the 3rd party/independent vote that voted AGAINST her. This election was determined, not quite by conservatives as it says in the OP, but by the rapidly growing independent/3rd party sector of the electorate. In fact, probably THIS YEAR, the number of voters declaring independence from 2 tribal brand name parties will reach a landmark of being BIGGER than both the Dem and Rep faithful put together.

Don't discount that percentage of votes that went for NEITHER candidate. It's the future of American politics.

Or the growing number of RV’s that simply DNV.

That's an artifact of having 2 brand name DEFECTIVE, entitled, and meglomaniac candidates. And a rejection of clusterfuck that the DemReps turning our country's political contests into.

We're on a tangent; but okay. I agree that there is more splintering away from the two party monopoly. Though, the splintering from Republicans as opposed to Democrats is about 4 to 1 (maybe more). I think this is a reflection of the Democrat base being more ignorant and easy to manipulate as Hillary would put it.

 

[flacaltenn]

Ms. Clinton got more votes than anyone else.

... more than any other SINGLE candidate. However, her pop vote margin over Trump was about 1/3 of the 3rd party/independent vote that voted AGAINST her. This election was determined, not quite by conservatives as it says in the OP, but by the rapidly growing independent/3rd party sector of the electorate. In fact, probably THIS YEAR, the number of voters declaring independence from 2 tribal brand name parties will reach a landmark of being BIGGER than both the Dem and Rep faithful put together.

Don't discount that percentage of votes that went for NEITHER candidate. It's the future of American politics.

Okay, but say it had came down to a runoff between two candidates; the data shows that it wouldn't have been in the bag for Hillary. My overarching point is that the Hillary winning the popular vote by 2.5 percent is superficial if not just outright phony.

Oh I agree. She did not WIN the popular vote unless you're willing to disenfranchise that 4.6% that cast principled votes against the BOTH of them. So then it's a speculation as to what WOULD have happened in a 2 way race between the meglomaniacs. And we don't KNOW what that result would be for the pop vote or the E-vote.

We DO KNOW that just the 1% of Stein voters cost Hillary 2 (maybe 3) states. A point that the left wants to keep SILENT for some reason. And I suspect that would be a very slight advantage for Trump out of the 3.8% of the LParty vote. In some states -- it MIGHT have mattered. Might have canceled out the Stein votes.

But the LARGE MAJORITY of the 3.8% LParty vote would have stayed home.

 

[TheGreatGatsby]

Ms. Clinton got more votes than anyone else.

... more than any other SINGLE candidate. However, her pop vote margin over Trump was about 1/3 of the 3rd party/independent vote that voted AGAINST her. This election was determined, not quite by conservatives as it says in the OP, but by the rapidly growing independent/3rd party sector of the electorate. In fact, probably THIS YEAR, the number of voters declaring independence from 2 tribal brand name parties will reach a landmark of being BIGGER than both the Dem and Rep faithful put together.

Don't discount that percentage of votes that went for NEITHER candidate. It's the future of American politics.

Okay, but say it had came down to a runoff between two candidates; the data shows that it wouldn't have been in the bag for Hillary. My overarching point is that the Hillary winning the popular vote by 2.5 percent is superficial if not just outright phony.

3 million more votes is not superficial, and not phony. The country didn't want Trump as president

It is. People knew going into this that the popular vote was not the deciding factor and voted accordingly. I know plenty of people who made statement votes or non votes who likely otherwise vote differently under a popular vote system. But as it is, people did vote at larger numbers for conservative principles.

 

[TheGreatGatsby]

Ms. Clinton got more votes than anyone else.

... more than any other SINGLE candidate. However, her pop vote margin over Trump was about 1/3 of the 3rd party/independent vote that voted AGAINST her. This election was determined, not quite by conservatives as it says in the OP, but by the rapidly growing independent/3rd party sector of the electorate. In fact, probably THIS YEAR, the number of voters declaring independence from 2 tribal brand name parties will reach a landmark of being BIGGER than both the Dem and Rep faithful put together.

Don't discount that percentage of votes that went for NEITHER candidate. It's the future of American politics.

Okay, but say it had came down to a runoff between two candidates; the data shows that it wouldn't have been in the bag for Hillary. My overarching point is that the Hillary winning the popular vote by 2.5 percent is superficial if not just outright phony.

Oh I agree. She did not WIN the popular vote unless you're willing to disenfranchise that 4.6% that cast principled votes against the BOTH of them. So then it's a speculation as to what WOULD have happened in a 2 way race between the meglomaniacs. And we don't KNOW what that result would be for the pop vote or the E-vote.

We DO KNOW that just the 1% of Stein voters cost Hillary 2 (maybe 3) states. A point that the left wants to keep SILENT for some reason. And I suspect that would be a very slight advantage for Trump out of the 3.8% of the LParty vote. In some states -- it MIGHT have mattered. Might have canceled out the Stein votes.

But the LARGE MAJORITY of the 3.8% LParty vote would have stayed home.

And I would theorize that literally millions more would've voted had they had the incentive to do so.

 

[flacaltenn]

Ms. Clinton got more votes than anyone else.

Yes, but if the election were about that; those voting for other conservative candidates may well have voted for Trump. And clearly we see that your agenda is not supported by a majority as well.

If. if. If. if. Your clown lucked out, and you want to act like he legitimately won. He' will be president, but you will never be able to say the majority of the country wanted that.

Trump did legitimately win. The outcome is not in disrepute. And my point would be that it could be argued that ultimately more people wanted Trump than Hillary. If we're counting only legal citizens, then the picture becomes clearer still yet.

Still whining about imaginary illegal citizens voting. Come up with proof of more than a tiny fraction of a percent, and you might have a point.

It's not PROOF -- but it is entirely suspicious that there were about 1.5MILLION "provisional" ballots cast in Cali. When I last checked about 8 days after the election, Cali had just cleared less than 200,000 of these. So we KNOW that an extraordinary amount of questionable ballots were cast. And that's on the Cali system. Where people have the expectation of just walking into a polling place (or a dozen polling places) and be allowed to vote regardless of the fact that they don't APPEAR on the voting rolls.

That's a lousy way to run an election system.

 

[BULLDOG]

Ms. Clinton got more votes than anyone else.

Yes, but if the election were about that; those voting for other conservative candidates may well have voted for Trump. And clearly we see that your agenda is not supported by a majority as well.

If. if. If. if. Your clown lucked out, and you want to act like he legitimately won. He' will be president, but you will never be able to say the majority of the country wanted that.

Trump did legitimately win. The outcome is not in disrepute. And my point would be that it could be argued that ultimately more people wanted Trump than Hillary. If we're counting only legal citizens, then the picture becomes clearer still yet.

No. There was no appreciable discrepancy in the legality of the voters, no matter how much right wing radio claims. Come up with proof, and try again.

 

[TheGreatGatsby]

But the LARGE MAJORITY of the 3.8% LParty vote would have stayed home.

Majority? I doubt that very much. While they are very principled voters, we know that libertarians vote Republican in lieu of Democrats at a high clip, likely more than 90 percent.

 

[Derelict_Drvr]

Ms. Clinton got more votes than anyone else.

... more than any other SINGLE candidate. However, her pop vote margin over Trump was about 1/3 of the 3rd party/independent vote that voted AGAINST her. This election was determined, not quite by conservatives as it says in the OP, but by the rapidly growing independent/3rd party sector of the electorate. In fact, probably THIS YEAR, the number of voters declaring independence from 2 tribal brand name parties will reach a landmark of being BIGGER than both the Dem and Rep faithful put together.

Don't discount that percentage of votes that went for NEITHER candidate. It's the future of American politics.

Okay, but say it had came down to a runoff between two candidates; the data shows that it wouldn't have been in the bag for Hillary. My overarching point is that the Hillary winning the popular vote by 2.5 percent is superficial if not just outright phony.

3 million more votes is not superficial, and not phony. The country didn't want Trump as president

30 of 50 states disagree with you.

 

[TheGreatGatsby]

Ms. Clinton got more votes than anyone else.

Yes, but if the election were about that; those voting for other conservative candidates may well have voted for Trump. And clearly we see that your agenda is not supported by a majority as well.

If. if. If. if. Your clown lucked out, and you want to act like he legitimately won. He' will be president, but you will never be able to say the majority of the country wanted that.

Trump did legitimately win. The outcome is not in disrepute. And my point would be that it could be argued that ultimately more people wanted Trump than Hillary. If we're counting only legal citizens, then the picture becomes clearer still yet.

Still whining about imaginary illegal citizens voting. Come up with proof of more than a tiny fraction of a percent, and you might have a point.

It's not PROOF -- but it is entirely suspicious that there were about 1.5MILLION "provisional" ballots cast in Cali. When I last checked about 8 days after the election, Cali had just cleared less than 200,000 of these. So we KNOW that an extraordinary amount of questionable ballots were cast. And that's on the Cali system. Where people have the expectation of just walking into a polling place (or a dozen polling places) and be allowed to vote regardless of the fact that they don't APPEAR on the voting rolls.

That's a lousy way to run an election system.

I live in Cali. They give away provisional ballots like candy.