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

[easyt65]

Virginia was always the largest population state. Attached it the census and please keep in mind that the slaves were not included in the census until 1790. The 3/5 compromise was in 1787. The government wanted to count all adults in its census but this would have magnified the southern states power even more. The compromise was actually a reduction of power for slave states that had to identify the number of adults in their state who were slaves and could only get credit for 3/5 of that adult instead of 100% as a method of reducing the slaves affect on the electoral college.

Population of the 13 Colonies 1610-1790

You didn't go to public school, did you? They don't even teach US history there any more ...

 

[Papageorgio]

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.

No, that is why she is sitting at home crying and all you nuts are rioting. Maybe you should go back to school and learn how Presidents are really elected in the US.

 

[GaryDog]

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.

So as the 2 parties lose their grip on power --- you're PERFECTLY fine claiming the pop vote mandate with perhaps only 45% or even 35% of Americans supporting your candidate? Seems like at some point, when the VAST MAJORITY REJECTS YOU --- "winning the popular vote" ain't really that big of a deal.

Just don't ignore the 4.2% which is six times "her margin of victory "..

You're fellating "4.2%" like it's a majority, while you' ignore 48%. You're passing nonsensical and becoming laughable.

 

[Pogo]

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.

No, that is why she is sitting at home crying and all you nuts are rioting. Maybe you should go back to school and learn how Presidents are really elected in the US.

On the contrary it seems some of us are acutely aware of how they're elected.

 

[Papageorgio]

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.

No, that is why she is sitting at home crying and all you nuts are rioting. Maybe you should go back to school and learn how Presidents are really elected in the US.

On the contrary it seems some of us are acutely aware of how they're elected.

I was addressing NY, not all or even some, and not you. I singled him out. Take care.

 

[Pogo]

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.

No, that is why she is sitting at home crying and all you nuts are rioting. Maybe you should go back to school and learn how Presidents are really elected in the US.

On the contrary it seems some of us are acutely aware of how they're elected.

I was addressing NY, not all or even some, and not you. I singled him out. Take care.

You might wanna read the actual nest here. The poster said "she beat Trump" in response to FCT's number-fudging. That's actually got nothing to do with how presidents are elected.

---- which, that absent association, seems to be the whole reason for this thread.

 

[hadit]

To pacify the Snowflakes whose heads are exploding as they scramble to attack my last post, let's talk about the whole potentially 3 - 4 Million Illegals who 'voted'.

How do we know and what do the numbers mean?

-------------------

How many illegals voted in the 2016 Presidential Election? - Uncle Sam's Misguided Children

1. 1st, the numbers were researched, calculated, and reported:

"Completed analysis of database of 180 million voter registrations. Number of non-citizen votes exceeds 3 million.
Consulting legal team.
— Gregg Phillips (@JumpVote) November 11, 2016"

"The problem is that at least 3 million illegals may have voted, and likely for Hillary. If they did, and the 3 million number is removed from the popular vote count, it would mean that Trump won the popular vote as well. Clinton was only ahead by 630,877 votes."



2. There are reportedly 4 million votes still uncounted in California, with about 2 million more outstanding elsewhere...IF the votes are legal, IF all the votes are for Hillary....




3. FINALLY. let's say that every single one of those unaccounted for / un-counted votes turn out to be FOR Hillary....that would mean Hillary would mean Hillary could end up winning the Popular Vote by as much as 7.5+ Million votes.....WHICH MEANS....







....ABSOLUTELY NOTHING!


It STILL means HILLARY CLINTON LOST!

In this country the President of the United States is selected using the ELECTORAL COLLEGE, NOT by Popular Vote.

Hillary Clinton could be 10 Million votes ahead, and it would still mean NOTHING because Donald Trump won the 2016 Presidential Election.

Don't like it? Then contact your politicians and demand they system be changed to popular vote. (Before you do, however, I strongly urge yourself to REALLY research the Electoral Process, understand it, understand WHY it was chosen, and why it is still extremely important.)

Desperation strikes deep.

This was the same little kid who gets beat in Little League and then goes "no fair! Your home run didn't count! Waaah!"

Incorrect. This is the little kid whose team won the Little League game by 5 runs and is consoling one of the losers by congratulating him on his solo home run in the 4th inning.

 

[hadit]

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.

Of course, because governors are elected by majority vote. Presidents, OTOH, are not.

 

[Papageorgio]

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.

No, that is why she is sitting at home crying and all you nuts are rioting. Maybe you should go back to school and learn how Presidents are really elected in the US.

On the contrary it seems some of us are acutely aware of how they're elected.

I was addressing NY, not all or even some, and not you. I singled him out. Take care.

You might wanna read the actual nest here. The poster said "she beat Trump" in response to FCT's number-fudging. That's actually got nothing to do with how presidents are elected.

---- which, that absent association, seems to be the whole reason for this thread.

I read NY's post and responded and you responded to me and I disagreed. I still disagree.

 

[Pogo]

She beat Trump.

No, that is why she is sitting at home crying and all you nuts are rioting. Maybe you should go back to school and learn how Presidents are really elected in the US.

On the contrary it seems some of us are acutely aware of how they're elected.

I was addressing NY, not all or even some, and not you. I singled him out. Take care.

You might wanna read the actual nest here. The poster said "she beat Trump" in response to FCT's number-fudging. That's actually got nothing to do with how presidents are elected.

---- which, that absent association, seems to be the whole reason for this thread.

I read NY's post and responded and you responded to me and I disagreed. I still disagree.

I'm afraid you can't "disagree". It's a number. Numbers are not subject to opinion; they're absolute.

 

[Pogo]

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.

Of course, because governors are elected by majority vote. Presidents, OTOH, are not.

"Majority vote"?? Hmmm... "majority vote"
Oh wait, you mean "mob rule". Didn't you get the memo?

Lemme essplain. When it's a Governor or Senator or Mayor or Congresscritter or Sheriff you want, it's "majority vote". But if you did the same thing with a President it would be "mob rule".


See the difference? Me neither.

 

[hadit]

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.

Of course, because governors are elected by majority vote. Presidents, OTOH, are not.

"Majority vote"?? Hmmm... "majority vote"
Oh wait, you mean "mob rule". Didn't you get the memo?

Lemme essplain. When it's a Governor or Senator or Mayor or Congresscritter or Sheriff you want, it's "majority vote". But if you did the same thing with a President it would be "mob rule".


See the difference? Me neither.

The difference is obvious to most people. I'll type it very slowly to make it easier to grasp. Ready? Here it comes.

THE AMERICAN PRESIDENT WAS NOT INTENDED TO BE ELECTED BY THE PEOPLE. GOVERNORS, OTOH, WERE.

I hope that clears things up.

 

[Pogo]

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.

Of course, because governors are elected by majority vote. Presidents, OTOH, are not.

"Majority vote"?? Hmmm... "majority vote"
Oh wait, you mean "mob rule". Didn't you get the memo?

Lemme essplain. When it's a Governor or Senator or Mayor or Congresscritter or Sheriff you want, it's "majority vote". But if you did the same thing with a President it would be "mob rule".


See the difference? Me neither.

The difference is obvious to most people. I'll type it very slowly to make it easier to grasp. Ready? Here it comes.

THE AMERICAN PRESIDENT WAS NOT INTENDED TO BE ELECTED BY THE PEOPLE. GOVERNORS, OTOH, WERE.

I hope that clears things up.

Oh yeah. Clear as proverbial primordial mud.
Thank you for restating what I just said.

 

[flacaltenn]

If y'all want to whine about representation that is not at ALL proportional to number of voters -- you should be rowsting Barb Boxer. She just introduced "a bill" to end the E-College. But her moron ass sits in the ******* Senate. Which is 6 or 8 times MORE OUT OF WHACK with democratic representation, then the E-College is.

Seems to me -- she should "pass a bill" to abolish the Senate FIRST....

And Remember, lefty girls, guys, and other declarations of orientation. To paraphrase your dear leader who wants credit for everything that gets done in America -------

"Hillary Clinton -- YOU did not beat Donald Trump on your own. You had help." That popular vote got the "you didn't build that" meme all over it. YET -- that's gonna be the "legend" for partisans to fight about for the rest of their lives.

 

[Papageorgio]

No, that is why she is sitting at home crying and all you nuts are rioting. Maybe you should go back to school and learn how Presidents are really elected in the US.

On the contrary it seems some of us are acutely aware of how they're elected.

I was addressing NY, not all or even some, and not you. I singled him out. Take care.

You might wanna read the actual nest here. The poster said "she beat Trump" in response to FCT's number-fudging. That's actually got nothing to do with how presidents are elected.

---- which, that absent association, seems to be the whole reason for this thread.

I read NY's post and responded and you responded to me and I disagreed. I still disagree.

I'm afraid you can't "disagree". It's a number. Numbers are not subject to opinion; they're absolute.

292 is the number I agree with.

 

[hazlnut]

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.

Too many people stayed home in the rust belt.

 

[Papageorgio]

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.

Too many people stayed home in the rust belt.

Yep, she did not motivate the Democratic base and it cost her dearly. Next time the Dems need to get a better candidate.

 

[Nia88]

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.

It has been frustrating and downright embarrassing trying to explain to my non American friends how Trump won but Hilary had more votes.

 

[SYTFE]

Hillary's lead is over 2 million now.

 

[Papageorgio]

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.

It has been frustrating and downright embarrassing trying to explain to my non American friends how Trump won but Hilary had more votes.

We are a Republic, not a Democracy. The Electoral College was put into place because of the fear of the majority. The system has been in place for over 200 years and if we want to change it, then we need to change it. That said we are a nation of laws. We honor the system that is in place.