And Will They Ever Stop Saying,"Yah,But Hillary Got More Votes!!".? No One Cares Anymore !

[flacaltenn]

It's been two weeks now, and the loonies are still being crybabies on cable news shows, still bringing up the fact that Hillary got more votes, therefore Trump shouldn't be President. Yet, these blockhead commentators also know that up to 4 Million of the votes came from illegals from the whole west coast/chicago and the northeast.

Did these rats also take notice that Trump had the most votes coming in until the end of the night when Finally the west coast states started calling in their totals? This happened with Al Gore too! Bush was ahead,{although by a small margin}, then later California called in their votes,super-seeding the Bush votes, and finally Bush won Florida sending Al Gore off to the North Pole looking for bears living on sheets of ice.

This whole claim that she "got more votes" is a complete failure of logic anyways. If the hypothesis is that "More folks voted Hillary" --- that's actually blatantly FALSE. Because anyone saying that is disenfranchising the large 4.2% of the vote that went to Stein and Johnson. Remember them? They got votes also. And THOSE votes were on principles and AGAINST the 2 major power whores.

So Hilliary got 48% of the vote and 52% of the people VOTED AGAINST HER...

(FCT certified Fact-Checked estimate)

In the future, the brand name candidates will be getting less and less of the total. It's a definite trend. So soon, you partisans will be arguing about "consensus" and "plurality" when your candidates have 60% or 70% of America voting against them.

Now -- if you're really desperate and butt-hurt --- You could have a NEW hypothesis to test. Which is "In a 2 way race between JUST Clinton and Trump -- Clinton won" .. Problem with that hypothesis is -- we did NOT HAVE a 2 way race. So you'd have to analyze and see how that the 4.2% WOULD have voted in a 2 way race. Not likely to be convincing. Since her current 0.7% "margin" over Trump COULD BE because Trump suffered 0.7% more by the presence of OTHER CHOICES on the ballot. And my educated guess is that MOST of that 4.2% that the Dems don't want to recognize ---- just would have stayed home. But there's enough votes in that bundle to AFFECT the pop vote outcome. EVEN WITH --- illegals voting in Cali. Or any of the other "excuses".

She didn't "WIN" the popular vote. More folks voted AGAINST HER then FOR HER... By far...

Clinton's lead in the popular vote surpasses 2 million

A half-dozen electors, those who will formally cast votes for Trump and Clinton on Dec. 19, are pushing to block Trump from winning a majority of votes.


Updated 11/23/16 06:53 PM EST

The leaders of that "revolt" are a bunch of Bernie fans. They will have little effect on the Repub electors who will cast their votes. It's all theater. And badly acted.

Meanwhile -- the pop vote margin is still LESS than 20% of the 4.2% Stein/Johnson vote that ALSO voted against her. The 4.2% that you intend to ignore and marginalize.

 

[flacaltenn]

It's been two weeks now, and the loonies are still being crybabies on cable news shows, still bringing up the fact that Hillary got more votes, therefore Trump shouldn't be President. Yet, these blockhead commentators also know that up to 4 Million of the votes came from illegals from the whole west coast/chicago and the northeast.

Did these rats also take notice that Trump had the most votes coming in until the end of the night when Finally the west coast states started calling in their totals? This happened with Al Gore too! Bush was ahead,{although by a small margin}, then later California called in their votes,super-seeding the Bush votes, and finally Bush won Florida sending Al Gore off to the North Pole looking for bears living on sheets of ice.

This whole claim that she "got more votes" is a complete failure of logic anyways. If the hypothesis is that "More folks voted Hillary" --- that's actually blatantly FALSE. Because anyone saying that is disenfranchising the large 4.2% of the vote that went to Stein and Johnson. Remember them? They got votes also. And THOSE votes were on principles and AGAINST the 2 major power whores.

So Hilliary got 48% of the vote and 52% of the people VOTED AGAINST HER...

(FCT certified Fact-Checked estimate)

In the future, the brand name candidates will be getting less and less of the total. It's a definite trend. So soon, you partisans will be arguing about "consensus" and "plurality" when your candidates have 60% or 70% of America voting against them.

Now -- if you're really desperate and butt-hurt --- You could have a NEW hypothesis to test. Which is "In a 2 way race between JUST Clinton and Trump -- Clinton won" .. Problem with that hypothesis is -- we did NOT HAVE a 2 way race. So you'd have to analyze and see how that the 4.2% WOULD have voted in a 2 way race. Not likely to be convincing. Since her current 0.7% "margin" over Trump COULD BE because Trump suffered 0.7% more by the presence of OTHER CHOICES on the ballot. And my educated guess is that MOST of that 4.2% that the Dems don't want to recognize ---- just would have stayed home. But there's enough votes in that bundle to AFFECT the pop vote outcome. EVEN WITH --- illegals voting in Cali. Or any of the other "excuses".

She didn't "WIN" the popular vote. More folks voted AGAINST HER then FOR HER... By far...

Math is hard!

It's logic and being adapt at answering questions with math that matters. And if you're gonna claim "the popular vote" -- you have to include ALL of it. Basic logic and reason. Math is useless without it.

52% voted for someone else. In the near future -- that could 60% or 65%. So claiming pop vote victory under those circumstances is gonna look ridiculous -- isn't it? And that's ANOTHER reason for the electoral college. America wasn't designed for just 2 dynasty parties.

 

[miketx]

It's been two weeks now, and the loonies are still being crybabies on cable news shows, still bringing up the fact that Hillary got more votes, therefore Trump shouldn't be President. Yet, these blockhead commentators also know that up to 4 Million of the votes came from illegals from the whole west coast/chicago and the northeast.

Did these rats also take notice that Trump had the most votes coming in until the end of the night when Finally the west coast states started calling in their totals? This happened with Al Gore too! Bush was ahead,{although by a small margin}, then later California called in their votes,super-seeding the Bush votes, and finally Bush won Florida sending Al Gore off to the North Pole looking for bears living on sheets of ice.

It's like a mental illness. "Your guy has crabs, but we only got sif". That kind of stupid.

 

[flacaltenn]

It's been two weeks now, and the loonies are still being crybabies on cable news shows, still bringing up the fact that Hillary got more votes, therefore Trump shouldn't be President. Yet, these blockhead commentators also know that up to 4 Million of the votes came from illegals from the whole west coast/chicago and the northeast.

Did these rats also take notice that Trump had the most votes coming in until the end of the night when Finally the west coast states started calling in their totals? This happened with Al Gore too! Bush was ahead,{although by a small margin}, then later California called in their votes,super-seeding the Bush votes, and finally Bush won Florida sending Al Gore off to the North Pole looking for bears living on sheets of ice.

This whole claim that she "got more votes" is a complete failure of logic anyways. If the hypothesis is that "More folks voted Hillary" --- that's actually blatantly FALSE. Because anyone saying that is disenfranchising the large 4.2% of the vote that went to Stein and Johnson. Remember them? They got votes also. And THOSE votes were on principles and AGAINST the 2 major power whores.

So Hilliary got 48% of the vote and 52% of the people VOTED AGAINST HER...

(FCT certified Fact-Checked estimate)

In the future, the brand name candidates will be getting less and less of the total. It's a definite trend. So soon, you partisans will be arguing about "consensus" and "plurality" when your candidates have 60% or 70% of America voting against them.

Now -- if you're really desperate and butt-hurt --- You could have a NEW hypothesis to test. Which is "In a 2 way race between JUST Clinton and Trump -- Clinton won" .. Problem with that hypothesis is -- we did NOT HAVE a 2 way race. So you'd have to analyze and see how that the 4.2% WOULD have voted in a 2 way race. Not likely to be convincing. Since her current 0.7% "margin" over Trump COULD BE because Trump suffered 0.7% more by the presence of OTHER CHOICES on the ballot. And my educated guess is that MOST of that 4.2% that the Dems don't want to recognize ---- just would have stayed home. But there's enough votes in that bundle to AFFECT the pop vote outcome. EVEN WITH --- illegals voting in Cali. Or any of the other "excuses".

She didn't "WIN" the popular vote. More folks voted AGAINST HER then FOR HER... By far...

Math is hard!

Why do I keep hearing that the actual Hillary vote count has just surpassed 2 million more than Trump? As a Hillary voter, I do not believe she should contest the election, but I do get a little tired of the defense of the electoral college and it's 'fairness'. Because at this point you have the most populous areas tyrannized by the least populous, and what's so great about Kansas anyway. Are these States somehow wiser and more compassionate? However, my thought, for what it's worth, is that this must be settled BEFORE an election, not in retrospect. The sun has set on the Clinton day.

It is a tad ironic that Trump is now waffling on the 'conflict of interest' part though. Assuming the mantle of the very foundation of his assertion of why Hillary is so 'crooked' is the (unproven therefore un-indictable) opportunity to take personal advantage of position to further personal gain. Wanna bet it will become the new norm within the Republican party?

Do you get tired of the Senate -- which is 5 or 6 times LESS representative than the E-College? We have a House that is damn near pure Democracy (except for 5 or 6 states who would have a fraction of one delegate). Then you have the Senate that is extraordinarily weighted to state representation. And the E-College is right in the Middle of all that..

 

[bullwinkle]

It's been two weeks now, and the loonies are still being crybabies on cable news shows, still bringing up the fact that Hillary got more votes, therefore Trump shouldn't be President. Yet, these blockhead commentators also know that up to 4 Million of the votes came from illegals from the whole west coast/chicago and the northeast.

Did these rats also take notice that Trump had the most votes coming in until the end of the night when Finally the west coast states started calling in their totals? This happened with Al Gore too! Bush was ahead,{although by a small margin}, then later California called in their votes,super-seeding the Bush votes, and finally Bush won Florida sending Al Gore off to the North Pole looking for bears living on sheets of ice.

This whole claim that she "got more votes" is a complete failure of logic anyways. If the hypothesis is that "More folks voted Hillary" --- that's actually blatantly FALSE. Because anyone saying that is disenfranchising the large 4.2% of the vote that went to Stein and Johnson. Remember them? They got votes also. And THOSE votes were on principles and AGAINST the 2 major power whores.

So Hilliary got 48% of the vote and 52% of the people VOTED AGAINST HER...

(FCT certified Fact-Checked estimate)

In the future, the brand name candidates will be getting less and less of the total. It's a definite trend. So soon, you partisans will be arguing about "consensus" and "plurality" when your candidates have 60% or 70% of America voting against them.

Now -- if you're really desperate and butt-hurt --- You could have a NEW hypothesis to test. Which is "In a 2 way race between JUST Clinton and Trump -- Clinton won" .. Problem with that hypothesis is -- we did NOT HAVE a 2 way race. So you'd have to analyze and see how that the 4.2% WOULD have voted in a 2 way race. Not likely to be convincing. Since her current 0.7% "margin" over Trump COULD BE because Trump suffered 0.7% more by the presence of OTHER CHOICES on the ballot. And my educated guess is that MOST of that 4.2% that the Dems don't want to recognize ---- just would have stayed home. But there's enough votes in that bundle to AFFECT the pop vote outcome. EVEN WITH --- illegals voting in Cali. Or any of the other "excuses".

She didn't "WIN" the popular vote. More folks voted AGAINST HER then FOR HER... By far...

Math is hard!

Why do I keep hearing that the actual Hillary vote count has just surpassed 2 million more than Trump? As a Hillary voter, I do not believe she should contest the election, but I do get a little tired of the defense of the electoral college and it's 'fairness'. Because at this point you have the most populous areas tyrannized by the least populous, and what's so great about Kansas anyway. Are these States somehow wiser and more compassionate? However, my thought, for what it's worth, is that this must be settled BEFORE an election, not in retrospect. The sun has set on the Clinton day.

It is a tad ironic that Trump is now waffling on the 'conflict of interest' part though. Assuming the mantle of the very foundation of his assertion of why Hillary is so 'crooked' is the (unproven therefore un-indictable) opportunity to take personal advantage of position to further personal gain. Wanna bet it will become the new norm within the Republican party?

Do you get tired of the Senate -- which is 5 or 6 times LESS representative than the E-College? We have a House that is damn near pure Democracy (except for 5 or 6 states who would have a fraction of one delegate). Then you have the Senate that is extraordinarily weighted to state representation. And the E-College is right in the Middle of all that..

A good question, and one to think about. Changing Presidents but leaving the same Congress in place is akin to no change at all. As a Dem voter, I really like that tough old bird Pelosi, but this Ryan kid has appeal, and maybe his fresh approach would be good for us.

 

[flacaltenn]

It's been two weeks now, and the loonies are still being crybabies on cable news shows, still bringing up the fact that Hillary got more votes, therefore Trump shouldn't be President. Yet, these blockhead commentators also know that up to 4 Million of the votes came from illegals from the whole west coast/chicago and the northeast.

Did these rats also take notice that Trump had the most votes coming in until the end of the night when Finally the west coast states started calling in their totals? This happened with Al Gore too! Bush was ahead,{although by a small margin}, then later California called in their votes,super-seeding the Bush votes, and finally Bush won Florida sending Al Gore off to the North Pole looking for bears living on sheets of ice.

This whole claim that she "got more votes" is a complete failure of logic anyways. If the hypothesis is that "More folks voted Hillary" --- that's actually blatantly FALSE. Because anyone saying that is disenfranchising the large 4.2% of the vote that went to Stein and Johnson. Remember them? They got votes also. And THOSE votes were on principles and AGAINST the 2 major power whores.

So Hilliary got 48% of the vote and 52% of the people VOTED AGAINST HER...

(FCT certified Fact-Checked estimate)

In the future, the brand name candidates will be getting less and less of the total. It's a definite trend. So soon, you partisans will be arguing about "consensus" and "plurality" when your candidates have 60% or 70% of America voting against them.

Now -- if you're really desperate and butt-hurt --- You could have a NEW hypothesis to test. Which is "In a 2 way race between JUST Clinton and Trump -- Clinton won" .. Problem with that hypothesis is -- we did NOT HAVE a 2 way race. So you'd have to analyze and see how that the 4.2% WOULD have voted in a 2 way race. Not likely to be convincing. Since her current 0.7% "margin" over Trump COULD BE because Trump suffered 0.7% more by the presence of OTHER CHOICES on the ballot. And my educated guess is that MOST of that 4.2% that the Dems don't want to recognize ---- just would have stayed home. But there's enough votes in that bundle to AFFECT the pop vote outcome. EVEN WITH --- illegals voting in Cali. Or any of the other "excuses".

She didn't "WIN" the popular vote. More folks voted AGAINST HER then FOR HER... By far...

Math is hard!

Why do I keep hearing that the actual Hillary vote count has just surpassed 2 million more than Trump? As a Hillary voter, I do not believe she should contest the election, but I do get a little tired of the defense of the electoral college and it's 'fairness'. Because at this point you have the most populous areas tyrannized by the least populous, and what's so great about Kansas anyway. Are these States somehow wiser and more compassionate? However, my thought, for what it's worth, is that this must be settled BEFORE an election, not in retrospect. The sun has set on the Clinton day.

It is a tad ironic that Trump is now waffling on the 'conflict of interest' part though. Assuming the mantle of the very foundation of his assertion of why Hillary is so 'crooked' is the (unproven therefore un-indictable) opportunity to take personal advantage of position to further personal gain. Wanna bet it will become the new norm within the Republican party?

Do you get tired of the Senate -- which is 5 or 6 times LESS representative than the E-College? We have a House that is damn near pure Democracy (except for 5 or 6 states who would have a fraction of one delegate). Then you have the Senate that is extraordinarily weighted to state representation. And the E-College is right in the Middle of all that..

A good question, and one to think about. Changing Presidents but leaving the same Congress in place is akin to no change at all. As a Dem voter, I really like that tough old bird Pelosi, but this Ryan kid has appeal, and maybe his fresh approach would be good for us.

As a Dem voter -- you'd be wise to retire "old birds" that have been doing the same press conferences for 30 years or more and not FIXING anything. She and Boxer are total embarrassments to any rational Americans.

Be a LOT more productive than messing with the Constitution..

 

[paperview]

It's been two weeks now, and the loonies are still being crybabies on cable news shows, still bringing up the fact that Hillary got more votes, therefore Trump shouldn't be President. Yet, these blockhead commentators also know that up to 4 Million of the votes came from illegals from the whole west coast/chicago and the northeast.

Did these rats also take notice that Trump had the most votes coming in until the end of the night when Finally the west coast states started calling in their totals? This happened with Al Gore too! Bush was ahead,{although by a small margin}, then later California called in their votes,super-seeding the Bush votes, and finally Bush won Florida sending Al Gore off to the North Pole looking for bears living on sheets of ice.

This whole claim that she "got more votes" is a complete failure of logic anyways. If the hypothesis is that "More folks voted Hillary" --- that's actually blatantly FALSE. Because anyone saying that is disenfranchising the large 4.2% of the vote that went to Stein and Johnson. Remember them? They got votes also. And THOSE votes were on principles and AGAINST the 2 major power whores.

So Hilliary got 48% of the vote and 52% of the people VOTED AGAINST HER...

(FCT certified Fact-Checked estimate)

In the future, the brand name candidates will be getting less and less of the total. It's a definite trend. So soon, you partisans will be arguing about "consensus" and "plurality" when your candidates have 60% or 70% of America voting against them.

Now -- if you're really desperate and butt-hurt --- You could have a NEW hypothesis to test. Which is "In a 2 way race between JUST Clinton and Trump -- Clinton won" .. Problem with that hypothesis is -- we did NOT HAVE a 2 way race. So you'd have to analyze and see how that the 4.2% WOULD have voted in a 2 way race. Not likely to be convincing. Since her current 0.7% "margin" over Trump COULD BE because Trump suffered 0.7% more by the presence of OTHER CHOICES on the ballot. And my educated guess is that MOST of that 4.2% that the Dems don't want to recognize ---- just would have stayed home. But there's enough votes in that bundle to AFFECT the pop vote outcome. EVEN WITH --- illegals voting in Cali. Or any of the other "excuses".

She didn't "WIN" the popular vote. More folks voted AGAINST HER then FOR HER... By far...

Math is hard!

It's logic and being adapt at answering questions with math that matters. And if you're gonna claim "the popular vote" -- you have to include ALL of it. Basic logic and reason. Math is useless without it.

52% voted for someone else. In the near future -- that could 60% or 65%. So claiming pop vote victory under those circumstances is gonna look ridiculous -- isn't it? And that's ANOTHER reason for the electoral college. America wasn't designed for just 2 dynasty parties.

No. She won more votes than anyone else.

Basic math.

 

[Daryl Hunt]

Our election is more than a day's worth of tallying. Announcing the two parts (popular and electorate) at the same time is wrong. Fine, announce the Popular vote. Then, when the electorate college meets and votes, announce that one by itself. The Election is not over until the official tally of the Electorate College and that happens next month. Until then, the Electorate College members can change their votes. And if neither party gets the 270 vote total then it goes to the House and Senate who will appoint the President and VP. It ain't over till the fat lady sings.

 

[NYcarbineer]

It's been two weeks now, and the loonies are still being crybabies on cable news shows, still bringing up the fact that Hillary got more votes, therefore Trump shouldn't be President. Yet, these blockhead commentators also know that up to 4 Million of the votes came from illegals from the whole west coast/chicago and the northeast.

Did these rats also take notice that Trump had the most votes coming in until the end of the night when Finally the west coast states started calling in their totals? This happened with Al Gore too! Bush was ahead,{although by a small margin}, then later California called in their votes,super-seeding the Bush votes, and finally Bush won Florida sending Al Gore off to the North Pole looking for bears living on sheets of ice.

Nobody cared about the Birther nonsense 8 years before Trump finally caved in.

Let him choke on his own medicine.

 

[Campbell]

It's been two weeks now, and the loonies are still being crybabies on cable news shows, still bringing up the fact that Hillary got more votes, therefore Trump shouldn't be President. Yet, these blockhead commentators also know that up to 4 Million of the votes came from illegals from the whole west coast/chicago and the northeast.

Did these rats also take notice that Trump had the most votes coming in until the end of the night when Finally the west coast states started calling in their totals? This happened with Al Gore too! Bush was ahead,{although by a small margin}, then later California called in their votes,super-seeding the Bush votes, and finally Bush won Florida sending Al Gore off to the North Pole looking for bears living on sheets of ice.

This whole claim that she "got more votes" is a complete failure of logic anyways. If the hypothesis is that "More folks voted Hillary" --- that's actually blatantly FALSE. Because anyone saying that is disenfranchising the large 4.2% of the vote that went to Stein and Johnson. Remember them? They got votes also. And THOSE votes were on principles and AGAINST the 2 major power whores.

So Hilliary got 48% of the vote and 52% of the people VOTED AGAINST HER...

(FCT certified Fact-Checked estimate)

In the future, the brand name candidates will be getting less and less of the total. It's a definite trend. So soon, you partisans will be arguing about "consensus" and "plurality" when your candidates have 60% or 70% of America voting against them.

Now -- if you're really desperate and butt-hurt --- You could have a NEW hypothesis to test. Which is "In a 2 way race between JUST Clinton and Trump -- Clinton won" .. Problem with that hypothesis is -- we did NOT HAVE a 2 way race. So you'd have to analyze and see how that the 4.2% WOULD have voted in a 2 way race. Not likely to be convincing. Since her current 0.7% "margin" over Trump COULD BE because Trump suffered 0.7% more by the presence of OTHER CHOICES on the ballot. And my educated guess is that MOST of that 4.2% that the Dems don't want to recognize ---- just would have stayed home. But there's enough votes in that bundle to AFFECT the pop vote outcome. EVEN WITH --- illegals voting in Cali. Or any of the other "excuses".

She didn't "WIN" the popular vote. More folks voted AGAINST HER then FOR HER... By far...

Math is hard!

Why do I keep hearing that the actual Hillary vote count has just surpassed 2 million more than Trump? As a Hillary voter, I do not believe she should contest the election, but I do get a little tired of the defense of the electoral college and it's 'fairness'. Because at this point you have the most populous areas tyrannized by the least populous, and what's so great about Kansas anyway. Are these States somehow wiser and more compassionate? However, my thought, for what it's worth, is that this must be settled BEFORE an election, not in retrospect. The sun has set on the Clinton day.

It is a tad ironic that Trump is now waffling on the 'conflict of interest' part though. Assuming the mantle of the very foundation of his assertion of why Hillary is so 'crooked' is the (unproven therefore un-indictable) opportunity to take personal advantage of position to further personal gain. Wanna bet it will become the new norm within the Republican party?

The electoral college is the most unfair and outdated part of our government. Any fool should want to get rid of it.

 

[flacaltenn]

It's been two weeks now, and the loonies are still being crybabies on cable news shows, still bringing up the fact that Hillary got more votes, therefore Trump shouldn't be President. Yet, these blockhead commentators also know that up to 4 Million of the votes came from illegals from the whole west coast/chicago and the northeast.

Did these rats also take notice that Trump had the most votes coming in until the end of the night when Finally the west coast states started calling in their totals? This happened with Al Gore too! Bush was ahead,{although by a small margin}, then later California called in their votes,super-seeding the Bush votes, and finally Bush won Florida sending Al Gore off to the North Pole looking for bears living on sheets of ice.

This whole claim that she "got more votes" is a complete failure of logic anyways. If the hypothesis is that "More folks voted Hillary" --- that's actually blatantly FALSE. Because anyone saying that is disenfranchising the large 4.2% of the vote that went to Stein and Johnson. Remember them? They got votes also. And THOSE votes were on principles and AGAINST the 2 major power whores.

So Hilliary got 48% of the vote and 52% of the people VOTED AGAINST HER...

(FCT certified Fact-Checked estimate)

In the future, the brand name candidates will be getting less and less of the total. It's a definite trend. So soon, you partisans will be arguing about "consensus" and "plurality" when your candidates have 60% or 70% of America voting against them.

Now -- if you're really desperate and butt-hurt --- You could have a NEW hypothesis to test. Which is "In a 2 way race between JUST Clinton and Trump -- Clinton won" .. Problem with that hypothesis is -- we did NOT HAVE a 2 way race. So you'd have to analyze and see how that the 4.2% WOULD have voted in a 2 way race. Not likely to be convincing. Since her current 0.7% "margin" over Trump COULD BE because Trump suffered 0.7% more by the presence of OTHER CHOICES on the ballot. And my educated guess is that MOST of that 4.2% that the Dems don't want to recognize ---- just would have stayed home. But there's enough votes in that bundle to AFFECT the pop vote outcome. EVEN WITH --- illegals voting in Cali. Or any of the other "excuses".

She didn't "WIN" the popular vote. More folks voted AGAINST HER then FOR HER... By far...

Math is hard!

It's logic and being adapt at answering questions with math that matters. And if you're gonna claim "the popular vote" -- you have to include ALL of it. Basic logic and reason. Math is useless without it.

52% voted for someone else. In the near future -- that could 60% or 65%. So claiming pop vote victory under those circumstances is gonna look ridiculous -- isn't it? And that's ANOTHER reason for the electoral college. America wasn't designed for just 2 dynasty parties.

No. She won more votes than anyone else.

Basic math.

She got more votes than Donald, but not more pop votes than the ones that were cast for ALL the other choices. You have no idea what a race without 4 choices would have looked it. You can't invent the data for it.. 52% of voters DID NOT CHOOSE HER... Don't disenfranchise them.

What you are doing with this pop vote thing -- is trying to convince yourself that she got more votes than the competitive field. MY vote was not for Hillary or Trump --- and it matters 5 times more in the statistics than what you are claiming "her margin of victory" was.

The pop vote was NOT a 2 way race.

 

[flacaltenn]

It's been two weeks now, and the loonies are still being crybabies on cable news shows, still bringing up the fact that Hillary got more votes, therefore Trump shouldn't be President. Yet, these blockhead commentators also know that up to 4 Million of the votes came from illegals from the whole west coast/chicago and the northeast.

Did these rats also take notice that Trump had the most votes coming in until the end of the night when Finally the west coast states started calling in their totals? This happened with Al Gore too! Bush was ahead,{although by a small margin}, then later California called in their votes,super-seeding the Bush votes, and finally Bush won Florida sending Al Gore off to the North Pole looking for bears living on sheets of ice.

This whole claim that she "got more votes" is a complete failure of logic anyways. If the hypothesis is that "More folks voted Hillary" --- that's actually blatantly FALSE. Because anyone saying that is disenfranchising the large 4.2% of the vote that went to Stein and Johnson. Remember them? They got votes also. And THOSE votes were on principles and AGAINST the 2 major power whores.

So Hilliary got 48% of the vote and 52% of the people VOTED AGAINST HER...

(FCT certified Fact-Checked estimate)

In the future, the brand name candidates will be getting less and less of the total. It's a definite trend. So soon, you partisans will be arguing about "consensus" and "plurality" when your candidates have 60% or 70% of America voting against them.

Now -- if you're really desperate and butt-hurt --- You could have a NEW hypothesis to test. Which is "In a 2 way race between JUST Clinton and Trump -- Clinton won" .. Problem with that hypothesis is -- we did NOT HAVE a 2 way race. So you'd have to analyze and see how that the 4.2% WOULD have voted in a 2 way race. Not likely to be convincing. Since her current 0.7% "margin" over Trump COULD BE because Trump suffered 0.7% more by the presence of OTHER CHOICES on the ballot. And my educated guess is that MOST of that 4.2% that the Dems don't want to recognize ---- just would have stayed home. But there's enough votes in that bundle to AFFECT the pop vote outcome. EVEN WITH --- illegals voting in Cali. Or any of the other "excuses".

She didn't "WIN" the popular vote. More folks voted AGAINST HER then FOR HER... By far...

Math is hard!

Why do I keep hearing that the actual Hillary vote count has just surpassed 2 million more than Trump? As a Hillary voter, I do not believe she should contest the election, but I do get a little tired of the defense of the electoral college and it's 'fairness'. Because at this point you have the most populous areas tyrannized by the least populous, and what's so great about Kansas anyway. Are these States somehow wiser and more compassionate? However, my thought, for what it's worth, is that this must be settled BEFORE an election, not in retrospect. The sun has set on the Clinton day.

It is a tad ironic that Trump is now waffling on the 'conflict of interest' part though. Assuming the mantle of the very foundation of his assertion of why Hillary is so 'crooked' is the (unproven therefore un-indictable) opportunity to take personal advantage of position to further personal gain. Wanna bet it will become the new norm within the Republican party?

The electoral college is the most unfair and outdated part of our government. Any fool should want to get rid of it.

Which is less "democratic"? The E-College or the US Senate?

 

[Campbell]

It's been two weeks now, and the loonies are still being crybabies on cable news shows, still bringing up the fact that Hillary got more votes, therefore Trump shouldn't be President. Yet, these blockhead commentators also know that up to 4 Million of the votes came from illegals from the whole west coast/chicago and the northeast.

Did these rats also take notice that Trump had the most votes coming in until the end of the night when Finally the west coast states started calling in their totals? This happened with Al Gore too! Bush was ahead,{although by a small margin}, then later California called in their votes,super-seeding the Bush votes, and finally Bush won Florida sending Al Gore off to the North Pole looking for bears living on sheets of ice.

This whole claim that she "got more votes" is a complete failure of logic anyways. If the hypothesis is that "More folks voted Hillary" --- that's actually blatantly FALSE. Because anyone saying that is disenfranchising the large 4.2% of the vote that went to Stein and Johnson. Remember them? They got votes also. And THOSE votes were on principles and AGAINST the 2 major power whores.

So Hilliary got 48% of the vote and 52% of the people VOTED AGAINST HER...

(FCT certified Fact-Checked estimate)

In the future, the brand name candidates will be getting less and less of the total. It's a definite trend. So soon, you partisans will be arguing about "consensus" and "plurality" when your candidates have 60% or 70% of America voting against them.

Now -- if you're really desperate and butt-hurt --- You could have a NEW hypothesis to test. Which is "In a 2 way race between JUST Clinton and Trump -- Clinton won" .. Problem with that hypothesis is -- we did NOT HAVE a 2 way race. So you'd have to analyze and see how that the 4.2% WOULD have voted in a 2 way race. Not likely to be convincing. Since her current 0.7% "margin" over Trump COULD BE because Trump suffered 0.7% more by the presence of OTHER CHOICES on the ballot. And my educated guess is that MOST of that 4.2% that the Dems don't want to recognize ---- just would have stayed home. But there's enough votes in that bundle to AFFECT the pop vote outcome. EVEN WITH --- illegals voting in Cali. Or any of the other "excuses".

She didn't "WIN" the popular vote. More folks voted AGAINST HER then FOR HER... By far...

Math is hard!

Why do I keep hearing that the actual Hillary vote count has just surpassed 2 million more than Trump? As a Hillary voter, I do not believe she should contest the election, but I do get a little tired of the defense of the electoral college and it's 'fairness'. Because at this point you have the most populous areas tyrannized by the least populous, and what's so great about Kansas anyway. Are these States somehow wiser and more compassionate? However, my thought, for what it's worth, is that this must be settled BEFORE an election, not in retrospect. The sun has set on the Clinton day.

It is a tad ironic that Trump is now waffling on the 'conflict of interest' part though. Assuming the mantle of the very foundation of his assertion of why Hillary is so 'crooked' is the (unproven therefore un-indictable) opportunity to take personal advantage of position to further personal gain. Wanna bet it will become the new norm within the Republican party?

The electoral college is the most unfair and outdated part of our government. Any fool should want to get rid of it.

Which is less "democratic"? The E-College or the US Senate?

"A series of long-shot bids to reconsider the result of the 2016 election cropped up on Wednesday as Democrats and liberals dismayed by Donald Trump’s victory saw Hillary Clinton’s lead in the popular vote surpass 2 million on Wednesday."

 

[Rexx Taylor]

later this week, we will probably start hearing even more fake claims from the dummest of the dumb democrats that at this point, Hillary has three million more votes than Donald as all blue states are still re-counting the votes. isnt getting a bit old now when a rat just eggzaggerates thier own facts about the election when they get the chance on live TV! just like all of the reasons Hillary lost in a landslide! always blame the white man, right? ITS WHITEYS FAULT THAT HILLARY LOST !!

 

[flacaltenn]

This whole claim that she "got more votes" is a complete failure of logic anyways. If the hypothesis is that "More folks voted Hillary" --- that's actually blatantly FALSE. Because anyone saying that is disenfranchising the large 4.2% of the vote that went to Stein and Johnson. Remember them? They got votes also. And THOSE votes were on principles and AGAINST the 2 major power whores.

So Hilliary got 48% of the vote and 52% of the people VOTED AGAINST HER...

(FCT certified Fact-Checked estimate)

In the future, the brand name candidates will be getting less and less of the total. It's a definite trend. So soon, you partisans will be arguing about "consensus" and "plurality" when your candidates have 60% or 70% of America voting against them.

Now -- if you're really desperate and butt-hurt --- You could have a NEW hypothesis to test. Which is "In a 2 way race between JUST Clinton and Trump -- Clinton won" .. Problem with that hypothesis is -- we did NOT HAVE a 2 way race. So you'd have to analyze and see how that the 4.2% WOULD have voted in a 2 way race. Not likely to be convincing. Since her current 0.7% "margin" over Trump COULD BE because Trump suffered 0.7% more by the presence of OTHER CHOICES on the ballot. And my educated guess is that MOST of that 4.2% that the Dems don't want to recognize ---- just would have stayed home. But there's enough votes in that bundle to AFFECT the pop vote outcome. EVEN WITH --- illegals voting in Cali. Or any of the other "excuses".

She didn't "WIN" the popular vote. More folks voted AGAINST HER then FOR HER... By far...

Math is hard!

Why do I keep hearing that the actual Hillary vote count has just surpassed 2 million more than Trump? As a Hillary voter, I do not believe she should contest the election, but I do get a little tired of the defense of the electoral college and it's 'fairness'. Because at this point you have the most populous areas tyrannized by the least populous, and what's so great about Kansas anyway. Are these States somehow wiser and more compassionate? However, my thought, for what it's worth, is that this must be settled BEFORE an election, not in retrospect. The sun has set on the Clinton day.

It is a tad ironic that Trump is now waffling on the 'conflict of interest' part though. Assuming the mantle of the very foundation of his assertion of why Hillary is so 'crooked' is the (unproven therefore un-indictable) opportunity to take personal advantage of position to further personal gain. Wanna bet it will become the new norm within the Republican party?

The electoral college is the most unfair and outdated part of our government. Any fool should want to get rid of it.

Which is less "democratic"? The E-College or the US Senate?

"A series of long-shot bids to reconsider the result of the 2016 election cropped up on Wednesday as Democrats and liberals dismayed by Donald Trump’s victory saw Hillary Clinton’s lead in the popular vote surpass 2 million on Wednesday."

Why I do believe you blew off my question. That's not fair..

 

[paperview]

It's been two weeks now, and the loonies are still being crybabies on cable news shows, still bringing up the fact that Hillary got more votes, therefore Trump shouldn't be President. Yet, these blockhead commentators also know that up to 4 Million of the votes came from illegals from the whole west coast/chicago and the northeast.

Did these rats also take notice that Trump had the most votes coming in until the end of the night when Finally the west coast states started calling in their totals? This happened with Al Gore too! Bush was ahead,{although by a small margin}, then later California called in their votes,super-seeding the Bush votes, and finally Bush won Florida sending Al Gore off to the North Pole looking for bears living on sheets of ice.

This whole claim that she "got more votes" is a complete failure of logic anyways. If the hypothesis is that "More folks voted Hillary" --- that's actually blatantly FALSE. Because anyone saying that is disenfranchising the large 4.2% of the vote that went to Stein and Johnson. Remember them? They got votes also. And THOSE votes were on principles and AGAINST the 2 major power whores.

So Hilliary got 48% of the vote and 52% of the people VOTED AGAINST HER...

(FCT certified Fact-Checked estimate)

In the future, the brand name candidates will be getting less and less of the total. It's a definite trend. So soon, you partisans will be arguing about "consensus" and "plurality" when your candidates have 60% or 70% of America voting against them.

Now -- if you're really desperate and butt-hurt --- You could have a NEW hypothesis to test. Which is "In a 2 way race between JUST Clinton and Trump -- Clinton won" .. Problem with that hypothesis is -- we did NOT HAVE a 2 way race. So you'd have to analyze and see how that the 4.2% WOULD have voted in a 2 way race. Not likely to be convincing. Since her current 0.7% "margin" over Trump COULD BE because Trump suffered 0.7% more by the presence of OTHER CHOICES on the ballot. And my educated guess is that MOST of that 4.2% that the Dems don't want to recognize ---- just would have stayed home. But there's enough votes in that bundle to AFFECT the pop vote outcome. EVEN WITH --- illegals voting in Cali. Or any of the other "excuses".

She didn't "WIN" the popular vote. More folks voted AGAINST HER then FOR HER... By far...

Math is hard!

It's logic and being adapt at answering questions with math that matters. And if you're gonna claim "the popular vote" -- you have to include ALL of it. Basic logic and reason. Math is useless without it.

52% voted for someone else. In the near future -- that could 60% or 65%. So claiming pop vote victory under those circumstances is gonna look ridiculous -- isn't it? And that's ANOTHER reason for the electoral college. America wasn't designed for just 2 dynasty parties.

No. She won more votes than anyone else.

Basic math.

She got more votes than Donald, but not more pop votes than the ones that were cast for ALL the other choices. You have no idea what a race without 4 choices would have looked it. You can't invent the data for it.. 52% of voters DID NOT CHOOSE HER... Don't disenfranchise them.

What you are doing with this pop vote thing -- is trying to convince yourself that she got more votes than the competitive field. MY vote was not for Hillary or Trump --- and it matters 5 times more in the statistics than what you are claiming "her margin of victory" was.

The pop vote was NOT a 2 way race.

Spin it any way you want -- the bottom line is:
She won more votes than anyone else. Period.

Basic math. Fact.

 

[Campbell]

This whole claim that she "got more votes" is a complete failure of logic anyways. If the hypothesis is that "More folks voted Hillary" --- that's actually blatantly FALSE. Because anyone saying that is disenfranchising the large 4.2% of the vote that went to Stein and Johnson. Remember them? They got votes also. And THOSE votes were on principles and AGAINST the 2 major power whores.

So Hilliary got 48% of the vote and 52% of the people VOTED AGAINST HER...

(FCT certified Fact-Checked estimate)

In the future, the brand name candidates will be getting less and less of the total. It's a definite trend. So soon, you partisans will be arguing about "consensus" and "plurality" when your candidates have 60% or 70% of America voting against them.

Now -- if you're really desperate and butt-hurt --- You could have a NEW hypothesis to test. Which is "In a 2 way race between JUST Clinton and Trump -- Clinton won" .. Problem with that hypothesis is -- we did NOT HAVE a 2 way race. So you'd have to analyze and see how that the 4.2% WOULD have voted in a 2 way race. Not likely to be convincing. Since her current 0.7% "margin" over Trump COULD BE because Trump suffered 0.7% more by the presence of OTHER CHOICES on the ballot. And my educated guess is that MOST of that 4.2% that the Dems don't want to recognize ---- just would have stayed home. But there's enough votes in that bundle to AFFECT the pop vote outcome. EVEN WITH --- illegals voting in Cali. Or any of the other "excuses".

She didn't "WIN" the popular vote. More folks voted AGAINST HER then FOR HER... By far...

Math is hard!

It's logic and being adapt at answering questions with math that matters. And if you're gonna claim "the popular vote" -- you have to include ALL of it. Basic logic and reason. Math is useless without it.

52% voted for someone else. In the near future -- that could 60% or 65%. So claiming pop vote victory under those circumstances is gonna look ridiculous -- isn't it? And that's ANOTHER reason for the electoral college. America wasn't designed for just 2 dynasty parties.

No. She won more votes than anyone else.

Basic math.

She got more votes than Donald, but not more pop votes than the ones that were cast for ALL the other choices. You have no idea what a race without 4 choices would have looked it. You can't invent the data for it.. 52% of voters DID NOT CHOOSE HER... Don't disenfranchise them.

What you are doing with this pop vote thing -- is trying to convince yourself that she got more votes than the competitive field. MY vote was not for Hillary or Trump --- and it matters 5 times more in the statistics than what you are claiming "her margin of victory" was.

The pop vote was NOT a 2 way race.

Spin it any way you want -- the bottom line is:
She won more votes than anyone else. Period.

Basic math. Fact.

Yep and in 2000 the Republicans stole another election. Just think...if Al Gore had assumed the office 6000 young Americans would still be alive and the national debt would be paid off. Among dozens of other things that depended on the Bush tax cuts.

 

[regent]

I think many Americans still like to believe that they, and their votes, are important in selecting their government. Sort of a "we the people" thing.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

I think many Americans still like to believe that they, and their votes, are important in selecting their government. Sort of a "we the people" thing.

Then let "we the people" change the way we count votes before an election--not after an election.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Yep and in 2000 the Republicans stole another election. Just think...if Al Gore had assumed the office 6000 young Americans would still be alive and the national debt would be paid off. Among dozens of other things that depended on the Bush tax cuts.

FOS as always Campbell. Nobody stole anything. Repeating the same lies over and over again doesn't make it truth.