If popular vote counted, Trump would have campaigned to get that instead, and would have won anyway

[Little-Acorn]

It's hilarious to hear the liberals whining that if Hillary gets more popular votes than Trump, while Trump gets far more electoral votes as specified in the Constitution, somehow that makes Trump less elected or something.

Trump got more electoral votes because that's what he was trying to get. He succeeded, and Hillary failed.

If the Constitution said that the person with more popular votes becomes President, instead of electoral votes, then Trump would have (obviously) changed his tactics, campaigned more in big cities like NYC, Los Angeles, Denver, Philly, Chicago, Dallas/FW etc., and the result would be the same: He would get more votes from people he campaigned among. And it's reasonable to assume he would have more popular votes than Hillary, and would still be our next President. While Hillary would fail, again.

And no doubt, by now, the liberals would be whining that without the Electoral College the big cities were too likely to overwhelm smaller states whose cities weren't so big, and the this somehow made Trump less elected or something.

The Constitution says that the person who gets the most electoral votes becomes President. So Trump campaigned to get electoral votes. If it said instead that the popular vote would determine the next President, than Trump would change tactics, obviously, and campaigned to get those instead.

Liberals whining about the Electoral College now, are displaying the classic dodge of moving the goalposts after the game is over. This misdirection is typical of those who can't win the game when you play by the rules.

 

[JakeStarkey]

That is a loony of an OP, yeah.

 

[emilynghiem]

It's hilarious to hear the liberals whining that if Hillary gets more popular votes than Trump, while Trump gets far more electoral votes as specified in the Constitution, somehow that makes Trump less elected or something.

Trump got more electoral votes because that's what he was trying to get. He succeeded, and Hillary failed.

If the Constitution said that the person with more popular votes becomes President, instead of electoral votes, then Trump would have (obviously) changed his tactics, campaigned more in big cities like NYC, Los Angeles, Denver, Philly, Chicago, Dallas/FW etc., and the result would be the same: He would get more votes from people he campaigned among. And it's reasonable to assume he would have more popular votes than Hillary, and would still be our next President. While Hillary would fail, again.

And no doubt, by now, the liberals would be whining that without the Electoral College the big cities were too likely to overwhelm smaller states whose cities weren't so big, and the this somehow made Trump less elected or something.

The Constitution says that the person who gets the most electoral votes becomes President. So Trump campaigned to get electoral votes. If it said instead that the popular vote would determine the next President, than Trump would change tactics, obviously, and campaigned to get those instead.

Liberals whining about the Electoral College now, are displaying the classic dodge of moving the goalposts after the game is over. This misdirection is typical of those who can't win the game when you play by the rules.

Dear Little-Acorn
I think to win, Trump might have used the Democratic ticket to play the big cities and get those votes.
Could he still beat Hillary Clinton to the Democratic nomination?
If he teamed up with Sanders and united the progressives around jobs and economic reforms, sure!
If he played the same garbage Clinton did, maybe he would have met with the same division and failure.

 

[Little-Acorn]

That is a loony of an OP, yeah.

TRANSLATION: I can't refute what the OP said, but I hate it anyway. So I'll call it names instead of making any sensible argument, and hope somebody believes me somehow.

 

[TheOldSchool]

Trump couldn't get a majority of the vote in this country in a million years.

 

[Timmy]

The reason people bring up the pop vote is to counter this false notion that the right has a mandate .

 

[TheDude]

Don't confuse the leftists. They're already a mess.

 

[Cowman]

I see it's eating the OP up inside just like it is Trump.

Trump wanted to be loved. He's hating all the opposition he's getting... that over half of the voting population hates him.

 

[Pop23]

Trump understood that this "game" was more like Football, where certain scores are more valuable than others.

Because Clinton scored 5 field goals and Trump ONLY scored 3 Touchdowns, her backers think Clinton won even though the scoreboard, at a minimum showed Trump 18 - Clinton 15.

If Trump played a "game" that was more like baseball, which every score was exactly the same, I have little doubt he would have played the game differently.

 

[JakeStarkey]

If, if, if. The OP needs more than ifs, guys. Sanders would spit on Trump.

He rigged the election.

 

[Little-Acorn]

If popular vote counted, Trump would have campaigned to get that instead, and would have won anyway


It's hilarious to hear the liberals whining that if Hillary gets more popular votes than Trump, while Trump gets far more electoral votes as specified in the Constitution, somehow that makes Trump less elected or something.

Trump got more electoral votes because that's what he was trying to get. He succeeded, and Hillary failed.

If the Constitution said that the person with more popular votes becomes President, instead of electoral votes, then Trump would have (obviously) changed his tactics, campaigned more in big cities like NYC, Los Angeles, Denver, Philly, Chicago, Dallas/FW etc., and the result would be the same: He would get more votes from people he campaigned among. And it's reasonable to assume he would have more popular votes than Hillary, and would still be our next President. While Hillary would fail, again.

And no doubt, by now, the liberals would be whining that without the Electoral College the big cities were too likely to overwhelm smaller states whose cities weren't so big, and the this somehow made Trump less elected or something.

The Constitution says that the person who gets the most electoral votes becomes President. So Trump campaigned to get electoral votes. If it said instead that the popular vote would determine the next President, than Trump would change tactics, obviously, and campaigned to get those instead.

Liberals whining about the Electoral College now, are displaying the classic dodge of moving the goalposts after the game is over. This misdirection is typical of those who can't win the game when you play by the rules.

 

[TheDude]

Hillary is the 1960 Yankees. See they actually scored more runs than the Pirates did over all (e.g., Hillary captured the popular vote), but the Pirates won more games (e.g., Trump won the Championship).

 

[JakeStarkey]

Hillary is the 1960 Yankees. See they actually scored more runs than the Pirates did over all (e.g., Hillary captured the popular vote), but the Pirates won more games (e.g., Trump won the Championship).

That was a great series. The Yankees won four more championships and the Pirates: nothing. Same Same for the Donald: nothing

 

[TheDude]

Hillary is the 1960 Yankees. See they actually scored more runs than the Pirates did over all (e.g., Hillary captured the popular vote), but the Pirates won more games (e.g., Trump won the Championship).

That was a great series. The Yankees won four more championships and the Pirates: nothing. Same Same for the Donald: nothing

Trump won and Hillary lost, and you declare the opposite?

 

[JakeStarkey]

Hillary is the 1960 Yankees. See they actually scored more runs than the Pirates did over all (e.g., Hillary captured the popular vote), but the Pirates won more games (e.g., Trump won the Championship).

That was a great series. The Yankees won four more championships and the Pirates: nothing. Same Same for the Donald: nothing

Trump won and Hillary lost, and you declare the opposite?

No, you do. The Yanks went on to four straight series. Trump will go on to defeat. In other words, your simile is a fallacy of false equivalency. Nothing new for you.

 

[U2Edge]

It's hilarious to hear the liberals whining that if Hillary gets more popular votes than Trump, while Trump gets far more electoral votes as specified in the Constitution, somehow that makes Trump less elected or something.

Trump got more electoral votes because that's what he was trying to get. He succeeded, and Hillary failed.

If the Constitution said that the person with more popular votes becomes President, instead of electoral votes, then Trump would have (obviously) changed his tactics, campaigned more in big cities like NYC, Los Angeles, Denver, Philly, Chicago, Dallas/FW etc., and the result would be the same: He would get more votes from people he campaigned among. And it's reasonable to assume he would have more popular votes than Hillary, and would still be our next President. While Hillary would fail, again.

And no doubt, by now, the liberals would be whining that without the Electoral College the big cities were too likely to overwhelm smaller states whose cities weren't so big, and the this somehow made Trump less elected or something.

The Constitution says that the person who gets the most electoral votes becomes President. So Trump campaigned to get electoral votes. If it said instead that the popular vote would determine the next President, than Trump would change tactics, obviously, and campaigned to get those instead.

Liberals whining about the Electoral College now, are displaying the classic dodge of moving the goalposts after the game is over. This misdirection is typical of those who can't win the game when you play by the rules.

Hillary played by the same rules and played for the same states as Trump did, so its not accurate to say that if Trump had changed his strategy he would have been able to win the popular vote as well. You Forget that Hillary would change her strategy as well in such a situation. It is an undeniable fact that when it comes to the popular vote, the Democrats hold a slight advantage and have for nearly 30 years. From the election of 1992 up to this election in 2016, the Democrats have won the popular vote in every election except, 2004 when George W. Bush was re-elected after his first four years in office. Thats 6 out of 7 elections that the Democrat candidate has won.

But there is another interesting thing about the popular vote that no one has mentioned. Remove California and just look at the other 49 states combined. When you do that, Trump wins the popular vote in the 49 states outside of California by 1.6 million votes. The only reason Hillary won the popular vote is CALIFORNIA!!!!!!!! Hillary won the popular vote in California by 4.2 million votes which is incredible.

So there is another reason for the electoral college! The electoral college prevents the biggest state in the country from dominating politics. With the electoral college, a state as small as New Hampshire can still play a role. No one would ever visit New Hampshire again if the election was done by the popular vote.

The electoral college is still democratic while being a good system to check and balance the countries vote. I voted for Hillary Clinton and she could have won the electoral college if she had just Visited Wisconsin a few times, and put more resources into Pennsylvania and Michigan. Losing by 10,000 in Michigan, 22,000 in Wisconsin, and 46,000 in Pennsylvania are small amounts that could be corrected with more resources to turnout the vote. Hillary took these states for granted because they were apart of the semi-invincible blue wall. Trump followed his strategy and it worked very well even in states that he did not win like Maine, New Hampshire, and Minnesota. Had Hillary been aware and taken Trumps movements and strategy in those states more seriously, she would have won.

 

[Little-Acorn]

Trump has shown a much greater ability to pivot and try something different, than Hillary has.

If the rules changed and suddenly you had to win the popular vote to become President, Trump wouldn't have any trouble.

But Hillary would have lots of trouble. Every time she put in a public appearance, the more people saw of her the less they liked her - something she just cannot change.

 

[U2Edge]

Trump has shown a much greater ability to pivot and try something different, than Hillary has.

If the rules changed and suddenly you had to win the popular vote to become President, Trump wouldn't have any trouble.

But Hillary would have lots of trouble. Every time she put in a public appearance, the more people saw of her the less they liked her - something she just cannot change.

No matter how you stack it, this was a close election. It was easily in the toss up range. That means nothing was certain or for sure. If Trump had won like Reagan did in the 1980s or Bush Sr. did in 1988, then you might have point. But as it is, Trump lost the popular vote, and won the electoral college by a smaller margin than Obama. There is weakness in such a victory. If Trump does not gain the confidence of a larger percentage of people, he will be very vulnerable in 2020.

 

[Little-Acorn]

Trump has shown a much greater ability to pivot and try something different, than Hillary has.

If the rules changed and suddenly you had to win the popular vote to become President, Trump wouldn't have any trouble.

But Hillary would have lots of trouble. Every time she put in a public appearance, the more people saw of her the less they liked her - something she just cannot change.

If Trump does not gain the confidence of a larger percentage of people, he will be very vulnerable in 2020.

He'll have no trouble. He uses the Bully Pulpit very well, going around the hostile press to deliver his message directly (also using Twitter).

The nice thing about somewhat-conservative people using the Bully Pulpit, is that they are giving normal Americans what they wanted all along. They will support him more and more as he continues to do it.

Hillary (and Obama) was unable to do that, since they were legislating AGAINST the will of normal Americans.

If the Presidency was decided by popular vote, Trump would campaign on that basis, and win.

 

[Little-Acorn]

Hillary is the 1960 Yankees. See they actually scored more runs than the Pirates did over all (e.g., Hillary captured the popular vote), but the Pirates won more games (e.g., Trump won the Championship).

That was a great series. The Yankees won four more championships and the Pirates: nothing. Same Same for the Donald: nothing

Poor little jakes apparently needs to be reminded:

PRESIDENTIAL ELECTIONS:

Trump: 1
Hillary: 0