It's Official: Clinton's Popular Vote Win Came Entirely From California

[EvilCat Breath]

Democrats who are having trouble getting out of the first stage of grief — denial — aren't being helped by the fact that, now that all the votes are counted, Hillary Clinton's lead in the popular vote has topped 2.8 million, giving her a 48% share of the vote compared with Trumps 46%.

To those unschooled in how the United States selects presidents, this seems totally unfair. But look more closely at the numbers and you see that Clinton's advantage all but disappears.

As we noted in this space earlier, while Clinton's overall margin looks large and impressive, it is due to Clinton's huge margin of victory in one state — California — where she got a whopping 4.3 million more votes than Trump.

California is the only state, in fact, where Clinton's margin of victory was bigger than President Obama's in 2012 — 61.5% vs. Obama's 60%.

But California is the exception that proves the true genius of the Electoral College — which was designed to prevent regional candidates from dominating national elections.

(Excerpt) Read more at investors.com ...

Bullshit all the votes in California were counted on election night. The 2.8 million vote lead she has now is from overseas military ballots. She started out on election night with a 500K popular vote lead and it's grown since then because of the all the overseas military ballots that have come in. Sometimes these can take weeks to get back. She is now up around a 3 million popular vote lead.

Military ballots!

The military voting for the butcher of Benghazi.

You cannot possibly be serious.

 

[Slade3200]

The last time I checked California was part of the United states.

Indeed it is. But does that mean a vote in California should mean more than a vote in North Dakota? Democrats should run on that in '18 and '20 as a premise to eliminate the Electoral College. It's sure to be very 'popular'

What if candidates got a % of electoral votes from each state that reflects the percentage of the vote they got?

 

[Meathead]

The last time I checked California was part of the United states.

Indeed it is. But does that mean a vote in California should mean more than a vote in North Dakota? Democrats should run on that in '18 and '20 as a premise to eliminate the Electoral College. It's sure to be very 'popular'

What if candidates got a % of electoral votes from each state that reflects the percentage of the vote they got?

States are entitled to designate their EC votes by congressional district. If California is unhappy, it should do so.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Democrats who are having trouble getting out of the first stage of grief — denial — aren't being helped by the fact that, now that all the votes are counted, Hillary Clinton's lead in the popular vote has topped 2.8 million, giving her a 48% share of the vote compared with Trumps 46%.

To those unschooled in how the United States selects presidents, this seems totally unfair. But look more closely at the numbers and you see that Clinton's advantage all but disappears.

As we noted in this space earlier, while Clinton's overall margin looks large and impressive, it is due to Clinton's huge margin of victory in one state — California — where she got a whopping 4.3 million more votes than Trump.

California is the only state, in fact, where Clinton's margin of victory was bigger than President Obama's in 2012 — 61.5% vs. Obama's 60%.

But California is the exception that proves the true genius of the Electoral College — which was designed to prevent regional candidates from dominating national elections.

(Excerpt) Read more at investors.com ...

So what?

 

[owebo]

The last time I checked California was part of the United states.

Indeed it is. But does that mean a vote in California should mean more than a vote in North Dakota? Democrats should run on that in '18 and '20 as a premise to eliminate the Electoral College. It's sure to be very 'popular'

What if candidates got a % of electoral votes from each state that reflects the percentage of the vote they got?

Win the House, the Senate, the POTUS, and 3/4's of the state legislatures and pass a constitutional amendment.....good luck with at....until then, shut the fuck up....

 

[NYcarbineer]

The last time I checked California was part of the United states.

Indeed it is. But does that mean a vote in California should mean more than a vote in North Dakota? Democrats should run on that in '18 and '20 as a premise to eliminate the Electoral College. It's sure to be very 'popular'

It doesn't. Under the electoral college, the North Dakota vote counts more.

 

[owebo]

The last time I checked California was part of the United states.

Indeed it is. But does that mean a vote in California should mean more than a vote in North Dakota? Democrats should run on that in '18 and '20 as a premise to eliminate the Electoral College. It's sure to be very 'popular'

It doesn't. Under the electoral college, the North Dakota vote counts more.

See post #25

 

[Meathead]

It doesn't. Under the electoral college, the North Dakota vote counts more.

Liberal math: 3>55.

 

[Slade3200]

The last time I checked California was part of the United states.

Indeed it is. But does that mean a vote in California should mean more than a vote in North Dakota? Democrats should run on that in '18 and '20 as a premise to eliminate the Electoral College. It's sure to be very 'popular'

What if candidates got a % of electoral votes from each state that reflects the percentage of the vote they got?

Win the House, the Senate, the POTUS, and 3/4's of the state legislatures and pass a constitutional amendment.....good luck with at....until then, shut the fuck up....

How am I supposed to win all that if I'm shut the fucked up?

Are you not capable of having a discussion of ideas? All I see from you on this forum are empty petty partisan attacks... you come off as a bitter unhappy old grump... maybe take a break from the forum and go out in the world... try and find some happiness.

 

[owebo]

The last time I checked California was part of the United states.

Indeed it is. But does that mean a vote in California should mean more than a vote in North Dakota? Democrats should run on that in '18 and '20 as a premise to eliminate the Electoral College. It's sure to be very 'popular'

What if candidates got a % of electoral votes from each state that reflects the percentage of the vote they got?

Win the House, the Senate, the POTUS, and 3/4's of the state legislatures and pass a constitutional amendment.....good luck with at....until then, shut the fuck up....

How am I supposed to win all that if I'm shut the fucked up?

Are you not capable of having a discussion of ideas? All I see from you on this forum are empty petty partisan attacks... you come off as a bitter unhappy old grump... maybe take a break from the forum and go out in the world... try and find some happiness.

We know......

 

[NYcarbineer]

It doesn't. Under the electoral college, the North Dakota vote counts more.

Liberal math: 3>55.

See? Here's the truth. These idiots want North Dakota to have the same number of electoral votes as California.

 

[NYcarbineer]

The last time I checked California was part of the United states.

Indeed it is. But does that mean a vote in California should mean more than a vote in North Dakota? Democrats should run on that in '18 and '20 as a premise to eliminate the Electoral College. It's sure to be very 'popular'

It doesn't. Under the electoral college, the North Dakota vote counts more.

See post #25

See this.

 

[owebo]

The last time I checked California was part of the United states.

Indeed it is. But does that mean a vote in California should mean more than a vote in North Dakota? Democrats should run on that in '18 and '20 as a premise to eliminate the Electoral College. It's sure to be very 'popular'

It doesn't. Under the electoral college, the North Dakota vote counts more.

See post #25

See this.

Nothing

 

[my2¢]

No matter how you slice it that's still a heck of a big popular vote win. Not that it matters, I just hadn't saw need to keep up with the count and did not realize it had grown that wide. Wow.

 

[NYcarbineer]

It doesn't. Under the electoral college, the North Dakota vote counts more.

Liberal math: 3>55.

In North Dakota, Trump got 1 electoral vote for every 73,000 votes he received.

In California, Clinton got 1 electoral vote for every 159,160 votes she received.

IOW, a N Dakota electoral vote is worth more than double a California electoral vote.

 

[owebo]

No matter how you slice it that's still a heck of a big popular vote win. Not that it matters, I just hadn't saw need to keep up with the count and did not realize it had grown that wide. Wow.

What did she Win?

 

[owebo]

It doesn't. Under the electoral college, the North Dakota vote counts more.

Liberal math: 3>55.

In North Dakota, Trump got 1 electoral vote for every 73,000 votes he received.

In California, Clinton got 1 electoral vote for every 159,160 votes she received.

IOW, a N Dakota electoral vote is worth more than double a California electoral vote.

So?

 

[Slade3200]

No matter how you slice it that's still a heck of a big popular vote win. Not that it matters, I just hadn't saw need to keep up with the count and did not realize it had grown that wide. Wow.

Crazy part is if you look at the margins in the swing states... Wi, Mi, and Pen... the race was won by approx, 12k + 23k + 70k ... about 105k votes determined this election for the EC

2016 election results: State maps, live updates

 

[Meathead]

It doesn't. Under the electoral college, the North Dakota vote counts more.

Liberal math: 3>55.

In North Dakota, Trump got 1 electoral vote for every 73,000 votes he received.

In California, Clinton got 1 electoral vote for every 159,160 votes she received.

IOW, a N Dakota electoral vote is worth more than double a California electoral vote.

A minuscule difference in the state's popular vote can deliver 55 EC votes in California but only 3 in ND.

 

[Toro]

Democrats who are having trouble getting out of the first stage of grief — denial — aren't being helped by the fact that, now that all the votes are counted, Hillary Clinton's lead in the popular vote has topped 2.8 million, giving her a 48% share of the vote compared with Trumps 46%.

To those unschooled in how the United States selects presidents, this seems totally unfair. But look more closely at the numbers and you see that Clinton's advantage all but disappears.

As we noted in this space earlier, while Clinton's overall margin looks large and impressive, it is due to Clinton's huge margin of victory in one state — California — where she got a whopping 4.3 million more votes than Trump.

California is the only state, in fact, where Clinton's margin of victory was bigger than President Obama's in 2012 — 61.5% vs. Obama's 60%.

But California is the exception that proves the true genius of the Electoral College — which was designed to prevent regional candidates from dominating national elections.

(Excerpt) Read more at investors.com ...

Wait, what?


Oh SHIT!!!!Trump won the Popular vote final tally, TOO!!!