Hillary Clintion Leads by 1.7 Million in Popular Vote. More than both JFK's and Carter's Victories

[NYcarbineer]

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...

She beat Trump.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

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...

She beat Trump.

Remind me again? Who is the President elect?

 

[tycho1572]

Give it up, Dubya. There comes a time when it's best to accept the obvious.

Your woman lost for a reason.

 

[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...

She beat Trump.

And six times her margin of "victory" rejected her. This was NOT a 2 way race when you claim all of the "popular vote".. But then again, Dems just LOVE to divide up the constituents and disenfranchise their votes.

 

[Rustic]

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...

Yeah actually she did. Because 63.75 million is a greater number than anybody else's number. What you mean is it's not a majority of the vote. Nobody got that, and that's not unusual. Half of the last six elections (not counting this one) were ones where nobody scored a majority.

Unfortunately most of us didn't get a choice of NOTA. If we had, I suspect that would have won.

Popular vote = mob rule

Funny. I guess mob rule elected all those Republican governors you nuts love to boast about.

Learn all about election laws, the electoral college determines who is president. Most people learn that In elementary school.

 

[westwall]

There are still over 3 million votes left to count in California. Therefore, Clinton's victory will be over 2 million votes, possibly over 3 million votes.

This is a sad time for democracy in the United States. We have to deal with the corrupt racist and misogynist bully Trump for at least 4 years because of some nonsense known as the electoral college, which no other democracy in the world is stupid enough to have.

Subtract the millions of illegal aliens who somehow magically voted for her and the popular vote go's to the trumpster.

 

[Pogo]

There are still over 3 million votes left to count in California. Therefore, Clinton's victory will be over 2 million votes, possibly over 3 million votes.

This is a sad time for democracy in the United States. We have to deal with the corrupt racist and misogynist bully Trump for at least 4 years because of some nonsense known as the electoral college, which no other democracy in the world is stupid enough to have.

Subtract the millions of illegal aliens who somehow magically voted for her and the popular vote go's to the trumpster.

Then subtract the 62 million wombats who voted for Rump and he's shut out. Then add the125 million votes for Johnson that were thrown out. Etc etc etc.

Hey, I don't have evidence either....

 

[Ame®icano]

There are still over 3 million votes left to count in California. Therefore, Clinton's victory will be over 2 million votes, possibly over 3 million votes.

This is a sad time for democracy in the United States. We have to deal with the corrupt racist and misogynist bully Trump for at least 4 years because of some nonsense known as the electoral college, which no other democracy in the world is stupid enough to have.

On the contrary, it's a great time for the democracy in the United States. You and like you are the reason that Trump won. Leftists were rioting whole year, attacking innocent people, burning flags, and Trump voters responded accordingly against what you leftist represent.

And, by the way, electoral college is country's only protection from mob rule.

|

 

[Pogo]

There are still over 3 million votes left to count in California. Therefore, Clinton's victory will be over 2 million votes, possibly over 3 million votes.

This is a sad time for democracy in the United States. We have to deal with the corrupt racist and misogynist bully Trump for at least 4 years because of some nonsense known as the electoral college, which no other democracy in the world is stupid enough to have.

On the contrary, it's a great time for the democracy in the United States. You and like you are the reason that Trump won.

And, by the way, electoral college is country's only protection from mob rule.

Oh goody, it's "mob rule" again

The same "mob rule" that elected your Governor. You know, where all the Michigan counties sent electors to select the state chief exec, so there wouldn't be "mob rule"?

Oh wait.

OK, the "mob rule" that elected your Senator and your Congresscritter.

Oh wait.

Mayor?
Sheriff?
Commissioner of Paper Clips?



Guess not.

And say, do you even understand your own graphic there? Want me to explain it?

 

[Ame®icano]

There are still over 3 million votes left to count in California. Therefore, Clinton's victory will be over 2 million votes, possibly over 3 million votes.

This is a sad time for democracy in the United States. We have to deal with the corrupt racist and misogynist bully Trump for at least 4 years because of some nonsense known as the electoral college, which no other democracy in the world is stupid enough to have.

On the contrary, it's a great time for the democracy in the United States. You and like you are the reason that Trump won.

And, by the way, electoral college is country's only protection from mob rule.

|

Oh goody, it's "mob rule" again

The same "mob rule" that elected your Governor. You know, where all the Michigan counties sent electors to select the state chief exec, so there wouldn't be "mob rule"?

Oh wait.

OK, the "mob rule" that elected your Senator and your Congresscritter.

Oh wait.

Mayor?
Sheriff?
Commissioner of Paper Clips?



Guess not.

No, Michigan does not have electoral college. But we should.

And stop acting dumb... oh, wait, nevermind.

 

[NYcarbineer]

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...

She beat Trump.

And six times her margin of "victory" rejected her. This was NOT a 2 way race when you claim all of the "popular vote".. But then again, Dems just LOVE to divide up the constituents and disenfranchise their votes.

She beat Trump.

 

[NYcarbineer]

There are still over 3 million votes left to count in California. Therefore, Clinton's victory will be over 2 million votes, possibly over 3 million votes.

This is a sad time for democracy in the United States. We have to deal with the corrupt racist and misogynist bully Trump for at least 4 years because of some nonsense known as the electoral college, which no other democracy in the world is stupid enough to have.

Subtract the millions of illegal aliens who somehow magically voted for her and the popular vote go's to the trumpster.

You lie.

 

[Ame®icano]

 

[velvtacheeze]

If Trumpkins think that this difference doesn't matter, than they're stupid. It gives Trump a serious stain of illegitimacy. The Left should bring it up often, relentlessly. And it will.

 

[Ame®icano]

 

[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...

She beat Trump.

And six times her margin of "victory" rejected her. This was NOT a 2 way race when you claim all of the "popular vote".. But then again, Dems just LOVE to divide up the constituents and disenfranchise their votes.

She beat Trump.

Likely ONLY because that 4.2% vote that didn't OWE themselves to either of your dysfunctional parties hurt Trump more we hurt Hillary. The pollsters got that all wrong.

She didn't "beat Trump" --- WE beat up Trump in the popular vote. Ignoring that fact means you don't have a prayer of understanding the future of American politics..

 

[Ame®icano]

 

[tycho1572]

If Trumpkins think that this difference doesn't matter, than they're stupid. It gives Trump a serious stain of illegitimacy. The Left should bring it up often, relentlessly. And it will.

Says the guy who thought Hillary had a chance against Trump. LMAO!

 

[velvtacheeze]

If Trumpkins think that this difference doesn't matter, than they're stupid. It gives Trump a serious stain of illegitimacy. The Left should bring it up often, relentlessly. And it will.

Says the guy who thought Hillary had a chance against Trump. LMAO!

If you win the popular vote, you have a great chance to win. Of course I thought she had a chance to win. And if it weren't for the out-dated electoral college, invented to protect slave-owner interests, Trump would be in second place. Our country's racist past got Man-O-Orange in the White House.

 

[Pogo]

You uh, you DO know that none of these people, whoever they are, are posting here, do you not?

Wassamatta? Can't think of a point?