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

[Pogo]

There is no "illegal vote" except in the sphere of Macedonia Fake News.

well yea there is. and it is a key reason Hillary lost.

"There is" because you just posted it on the internets, and then read your own post, therefore it's true?

republicans have the white house, control the senate and thanks to harry reid can appoint the cabinet unopposed, control the house. control the majority of governors and state houses. get to shape the supreme court for generations. get to change back the future of America into something positive. have said **** you to political correctness and have instituted a rebellion in the opposite direction. the republicans are galvanized and the democrats are in a shambles. wikileaks has exposed them for the sham they are and America realizes they are not the party of the people. latinos will realize trump and the republicans are not trying to deport every Mexican as the democrats claim and it will cost the democrats the majority of the latino vote in the future. democrats totally miscalculated and the cost will drag them down for years.

Whatever.
Doesn't have anything to do with the previous point, does it?

it has everything to do with it. and democrats will keep losing elections until they realize it too

Nobody has to "realize" a bunch of fake news you just make up. Actually you have to realize it's fake.

Billions and billions of "illegals" didn't vote, just because some assclown went on the internet and posted "gawrsh, billions and billions of illegals voted!". Just as three million Amish didn't jump in buggies and run to the polls to vote for Rump. Just as "thousands and thousands" of people weren't dancing on a rooftop in Jersey City. Evidence requires something slightly more tangible than simple ipse dixit.

 

[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.

We aren't a democracy. We were never meant to be. Why is that so difficult to understand?

So what's the point of Election Day then?

Aye --- there's the rub.

 

[Pogo]

The electoral college prevents New York, San Jose and Los Angeles from dominating the will of the rest of the country who may have other needs than people who live in these big population centers. Why is this even a thread? If Hillary wants to go to the White House, she can pay her way as a tourist like everyone else and stand in line.

It seems like in every presidential election now, only about a dozen or less battleground states really matter. The candidates ignore the other states and their issues. Other than fund raising trips, neither candidate had more than one rally in my state. I knew how my state was going to vote for president long before I knew who was nominated. It was a waste of time voting for president. At least there were local issues that really did matter.

I understand the pros and cons of our system but from my viewpoint the system makes voting for president a waste of time for most Americans. The solid blue states will go blue and the solid red states will go red leaving a handful battleground states to make the decision. And once elected the president will pay particular attention to those battleground states attempting to bring them into his corner in the next election.

Precisely -- if you're in a locked-red or locked-blue state, there's no reason to go to the polls other than your own state or local office elections. Doesn't matter if you vote with your state or against it --- it's already decided. That's one more deleterious effect of the EC -- it discourages the public getting involved.

You simply can't have a high voter turnout AND an indirect election like we and Pakistan have. Gotta pick one or the other. What we pretend to do here is just a sham.

If we can't agree on a national popular vote, what seems reasonable to me would be requiring states to distribute their electoral votes based on the popular vote within the state as Mane and Nebraska do. In that way, the electoral college is maintained, giving smaller states an edge in the electoral college but it makes voting within each state more democratic always giving the minority a chance to win electoral votes. More importantly, it will destroy the red state blue state mentality which has been so destructive to national unity. Each party would have to win the votes from each state. No state would be "in bag".

That's been suggested. The issue with it is that Maine and Nebraska don't apportion their EVs according to the state's popular vote; they apportion them by Congressional district. And those are already, in many states including this one, artificial monstrosities far more divisively honed due to gerrymandering. So we'd get in many cases even more extremity of division, with intentionally-designed "deep red" districts and "deep blue" ones. That seems an enormous can of worms that would be easilly manipulated by whichever party has enough power in a given state to design those districts. They already manipulate them for advantage; this would invite them to make it even worse.

But what if the number electors awarded to a candidate was in direct proportion to the state's popular vote? A 60%/40% split in the state popular vote would result in a 60%/40% split in the states electoral votes. I think that would pretty well destroy the concept of solid red and solid blue states. All states would be in play, not just a handful of battleground states.

Zackly, that's a much fairer representation.
And it's been brought up before, but of course that immediately begs the question --- if you're just going to reflect the popular vote anyway ----------- what's the point of going through a middleman?

 

[Flopper]

It seems like in every presidential election now, only about a dozen or less battleground states really matter. The candidates ignore the other states and their issues. Other than fund raising trips, neither candidate had more than one rally in my state. I knew how my state was going to vote for president long before I knew who was nominated. It was a waste of time voting for president. At least there were local issues that really did matter.

I understand the pros and cons of our system but from my viewpoint the system makes voting for president a waste of time for most Americans. The solid blue states will go blue and the solid red states will go red leaving a handful battleground states to make the decision. And once elected the president will pay particular attention to those battleground states attempting to bring them into his corner in the next election.

Precisely -- if you're in a locked-red or locked-blue state, there's no reason to go to the polls other than your own state or local office elections. Doesn't matter if you vote with your state or against it --- it's already decided. That's one more deleterious effect of the EC -- it discourages the public getting involved.

You simply can't have a high voter turnout AND an indirect election like we and Pakistan have. Gotta pick one or the other. What we pretend to do here is just a sham.

If we can't agree on a national popular vote, what seems reasonable to me would be requiring states to distribute their electoral votes based on the popular vote within the state as Mane and Nebraska do. In that way, the electoral college is maintained, giving smaller states an edge in the electoral college but it makes voting within each state more democratic always giving the minority a chance to win electoral votes. More importantly, it will destroy the red state blue state mentality which has been so destructive to national unity. Each party would have to win the votes from each state. No state would be "in bag".

That's been suggested. The issue with it is that Maine and Nebraska don't apportion their EVs according to the state's popular vote; they apportion them by Congressional district. And those are already, in many states including this one, artificial monstrosities far more divisively honed due to gerrymandering. So we'd get in many cases even more extremity of division, with intentionally-designed "deep red" districts and "deep blue" ones. That seems an enormous can of worms that would be easilly manipulated by whichever party has enough power in a given state to design those districts. They already manipulate them for advantage; this would invite them to make it even worse.

But what if the number electors awarded to a candidate was in direct proportion to the state's popular vote? A 60%/40% split in the state popular vote would result in a 60%/40% split in the states electoral votes. I think that would pretty well destroy the concept of solid red and solid blue states. All states would be in play, not just a handful of battleground states.

It could be done by congressional district but then you'd have to deal with the two senate seats. That wouldn't work well with highly concentrated Dem populations, same as the House.

It would easier and and less subject to tampering by just awarding electors based on the state popular vote.

 

[Flopper]

It seems like in every presidential election now, only about a dozen or less battleground states really matter. The candidates ignore the other states and their issues. Other than fund raising trips, neither candidate had more than one rally in my state. I knew how my state was going to vote for president long before I knew who was nominated. It was a waste of time voting for president. At least there were local issues that really did matter.

I understand the pros and cons of our system but from my viewpoint the system makes voting for president a waste of time for most Americans. The solid blue states will go blue and the solid red states will go red leaving a handful battleground states to make the decision. And once elected the president will pay particular attention to those battleground states attempting to bring them into his corner in the next election.

Precisely -- if you're in a locked-red or locked-blue state, there's no reason to go to the polls other than your own state or local office elections. Doesn't matter if you vote with your state or against it --- it's already decided. That's one more deleterious effect of the EC -- it discourages the public getting involved.

You simply can't have a high voter turnout AND an indirect election like we and Pakistan have. Gotta pick one or the other. What we pretend to do here is just a sham.

If we can't agree on a national popular vote, what seems reasonable to me would be requiring states to distribute their electoral votes based on the popular vote within the state as Mane and Nebraska do. In that way, the electoral college is maintained, giving smaller states an edge in the electoral college but it makes voting within each state more democratic always giving the minority a chance to win electoral votes. More importantly, it will destroy the red state blue state mentality which has been so destructive to national unity. Each party would have to win the votes from each state. No state would be "in bag".

That's been suggested. The issue with it is that Maine and Nebraska don't apportion their EVs according to the state's popular vote; they apportion them by Congressional district. And those are already, in many states including this one, artificial monstrosities far more divisively honed due to gerrymandering. So we'd get in many cases even more extremity of division, with intentionally-designed "deep red" districts and "deep blue" ones. That seems an enormous can of worms that would be easilly manipulated by whichever party has enough power in a given state to design those districts. They already manipulate them for advantage; this would invite them to make it even worse.

But what if the number electors awarded to a candidate was in direct proportion to the state's popular vote? A 60%/40% split in the state popular vote would result in a 60%/40% split in the states electoral votes. I think that would pretty well destroy the concept of solid red and solid blue states. All states would be in play, not just a handful of battleground states.

Zackly, that's a much fairer representation.
And it's been brought up before, but of course that immediately begs the question --- if you're just going to reflect the popular vote anyway ----------- what's the point of going through a middleman?

You maintain the electoral college which will gives an edge to smaller states plus, it would be much easier to change than abolishing the electoral college. In fact, it might be possible to do it with an act of congress instead of changing the constitution. We enacted the voting rights law which certainly changed the way states ran their elections.

 

[Rustic]

Precisely -- if you're in a locked-red or locked-blue state, there's no reason to go to the polls other than your own state or local office elections. Doesn't matter if you vote with your state or against it --- it's already decided. That's one more deleterious effect of the EC -- it discourages the public getting involved.

You simply can't have a high voter turnout AND an indirect election like we and Pakistan have. Gotta pick one or the other. What we pretend to do here is just a sham.

If we can't agree on a national popular vote, what seems reasonable to me would be requiring states to distribute their electoral votes based on the popular vote within the state as Mane and Nebraska do. In that way, the electoral college is maintained, giving smaller states an edge in the electoral college but it makes voting within each state more democratic always giving the minority a chance to win electoral votes. More importantly, it will destroy the red state blue state mentality which has been so destructive to national unity. Each party would have to win the votes from each state. No state would be "in bag".

That's been suggested. The issue with it is that Maine and Nebraska don't apportion their EVs according to the state's popular vote; they apportion them by Congressional district. And those are already, in many states including this one, artificial monstrosities far more divisively honed due to gerrymandering. So we'd get in many cases even more extremity of division, with intentionally-designed "deep red" districts and "deep blue" ones. That seems an enormous can of worms that would be easilly manipulated by whichever party has enough power in a given state to design those districts. They already manipulate them for advantage; this would invite them to make it even worse.

But what if the number electors awarded to a candidate was in direct proportion to the state's popular vote? A 60%/40% split in the state popular vote would result in a 60%/40% split in the states electoral votes. I think that would pretty well destroy the concept of solid red and solid blue states. All states would be in play, not just a handful of battleground states.

Zackly, that's a much fairer representation.
And it's been brought up before, but of course that immediately begs the question --- if you're just going to reflect the popular vote anyway ----------- what's the point of going through a middleman?

You maintain the electoral college which will gives an edge to smaller states plus, it would be much easier to change than abolishing the electoral college. In fact, it might be possible to do it with an act of congress instead of changing the constitution. We enacted the voting rights law which certainly changed the way states ran their elections.

You Sound like a ***** whipped *****

 

[flacaltenn]

Precisely -- if you're in a locked-red or locked-blue state, there's no reason to go to the polls other than your own state or local office elections. Doesn't matter if you vote with your state or against it --- it's already decided. That's one more deleterious effect of the EC -- it discourages the public getting involved.

You simply can't have a high voter turnout AND an indirect election like we and Pakistan have. Gotta pick one or the other. What we pretend to do here is just a sham.

If we can't agree on a national popular vote, what seems reasonable to me would be requiring states to distribute their electoral votes based on the popular vote within the state as Mane and Nebraska do. In that way, the electoral college is maintained, giving smaller states an edge in the electoral college but it makes voting within each state more democratic always giving the minority a chance to win electoral votes. More importantly, it will destroy the red state blue state mentality which has been so destructive to national unity. Each party would have to win the votes from each state. No state would be "in bag".

That's been suggested. The issue with it is that Maine and Nebraska don't apportion their EVs according to the state's popular vote; they apportion them by Congressional district. And those are already, in many states including this one, artificial monstrosities far more divisively honed due to gerrymandering. So we'd get in many cases even more extremity of division, with intentionally-designed "deep red" districts and "deep blue" ones. That seems an enormous can of worms that would be easilly manipulated by whichever party has enough power in a given state to design those districts. They already manipulate them for advantage; this would invite them to make it even worse.

But what if the number electors awarded to a candidate was in direct proportion to the state's popular vote? A 60%/40% split in the state popular vote would result in a 60%/40% split in the states electoral votes. I think that would pretty well destroy the concept of solid red and solid blue states. All states would be in play, not just a handful of battleground states.

It could be done by congressional district but then you'd have to deal with the two senate seats. That wouldn't work well with highly concentrated Dem populations, same as the House.

It would easier and and less subject to tampering by just awarding electors based on the state popular vote.

If the electoral college voters have a conscience, they will do the right thing and give the election to Clinton. There is NOTHING in the Constitution that prevents the EC voters from choosing the legitimate winner, which is Clinton. In fact, the framers of the Constitution never intended for the winners of the most states or electorally strategic states to be President. The framers of the Constitution intended for the electoral college voters to vote based on the will of the majority of Americans, which is Hillary Clinton. This article from a Harvard law school professor says it all:

The Constitution lets the electoral college choose the winner. They should choose Clinton.

You want a war? Deny the voters the President they elected, Trump.

Clinton's 1.5%, 2 million vote lead over Trump says otherwise, assfuck.

The electoral college prevents New York, San Jose and Los Angeles from dominating the will of the rest of the country who may have other needs than people who live in these big population centers. Why is this even a thread? If Hillary wants to go to the White House, she can pay her way as a tourist like everyone else and stand in line.

It seems like in every presidential election now, only about a dozen or less battleground states really matter. The candidates ignore the other states and their issues. Other than fund raising trips, neither candidate had more than one rally in my state. I knew how my state was going to vote for president long before I knew who was nominated. It was a waste of time voting for president. At least there were local issues that really did matter.

I understand the pros and cons of our system but from my viewpoint the system makes voting for president a waste of time for most Americans. The solid blue states will go blue and the solid red states will go red leaving a handful battleground states to make the decision. And once elected the president will pay particular attention to those battleground states attempting to bring them into his corner in the next election.

Precisely -- if you're in a locked-red or locked-blue state, there's no reason to go to the polls other than your own state or local office elections. Doesn't matter if you vote with your state or against it --- it's already decided. That's one more deleterious effect of the EC -- it discourages the public getting involved.

You simply can't have a high voter turnout AND an indirect election like we and Pakistan have. Gotta pick one or the other. What we pretend to do here is just a sham.

If you're in a state "locked" either way -- an election like THIS ONE -- with 2 flawed candidates is the PERFECT opportunity to reject the Brand Name party choices and vote 3rd party. It's not about "winning" at that point. It's not about fear of the "other". It's about NOT rewarding the behavior that got us to choices of dynasties.

What more disenfranchising than the E-College in locked states or gerrymandering is the ARROGANCE of the minority party when they refuse to endorse or fund a candidate in your district or for Senate. These 2 parties collude to leave 12 to 15% of House/Senate races UNCONTESTED in the Generals. Which means they've totally abandoned up to 40% of the electorate. Start voting Independent or 3rd party when that happens. Don't leave the ballot blank. Make them PAY for their arrogance and collusion on "winning"..

 

[easyt65]

This just in...

TRUMP IS STILL YOUR NEXT PRESIDENT.

 

[easyt65]

What do you call a candidate who wins the Popular vote but not the Electoral College?
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
A LOSER! (Also known as 'Hillary')

 

[theHawk]

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.

Outside of California, Trump won the popular vote. One state doesn't get to be over represented. They had 55 EC votes, and Hillary won them all.

It's also quite stupid to assume if it was a popular vote, that the results would had been the same. Republicans wouldn't stay home in states like CA ad NY, and there would be millions more red votes. Trump said if it was a popular vote the candidates would spend most of their time in NY and CA. Even in the red states in middle America, more would come out knowing all their votes counted.

So much for Dubya being "da last Repub Prez".

 

[theHawk]

Not one liberal is going to "let this go." We're going to remind you that Hillary won the popular vote for the nest 4 years.

President '"***** grabber" elect does not have a mandate -- period.

Go right on ahead. We'll just remind you Trump won the EC vote. California doesn't get to determine the President with all their illegals voting. That's exactly why we have an EC, to shield the country from fraudulent states like CA.

 

[theHawk]

Wow, Kennedy only beat Nixon in 1960 by 112,000 votes. Yet, Clinton gets 1.7 million and still loses.

I think the popular vote would be a better way to elect presidents.

No one cares what you think. Thank God we have a constitution to protect us from idiots like you.

 

[Esmeralda]

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.

We're a Republic, not a mob rule Democracy.

Hilly won 57 counties, Trump won over 3,000.

Republic, not Democracy

Democracy = Mob rule? What a moron.

 

[paperview]

The phoney electoral college made a laughing stock out of our nation. The loser one!

 

[Dubya Da Last Repug Prez]

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.

Outside of California, Trump won the popular vote. One state doesn't get to be over represented. They had 55 EC votes, and Hillary won them all.

It's also quite stupid to assume if it was a popular vote, that the results would had been the same. Republicans wouldn't stay home in states like CA ad NY, and there would be millions more red votes. Trump said if it was a popular vote the candidates would spend most of their time in NY and CA. Even in the red states in middle America, more would come out knowing all their votes counted.

So much for Dubya being "da last Repub Prez".

Wrong as usual, not that you really care. If California had the same electoral college representation as Wyoming, it would be worth about 200 electoral votes.

Therefore, California is underrepresented in the electoral college, not overrepresented.

And there is simply no way that a Repug can win CA and NY nowadays without cheating, which is probably what happened in Pennsylvania, Michigan, and Wisconsin. Those 3 states did not all suddenly turn red after 20+ years. Bullshit.

 

[Divine Wind]

Democracy = Mob rule? .......

Pure democracy, yes. "White privilege" is a standard LWL use of the race card but it's really about majority rule. There's a reason why the Founders didn't want a pure democracy, but opted for a Constitutional Republic.

Given a choice, would you rather have a pure democracy or a Constitutional Republic? Something in between?

 

[Dubya Da Last Repug Prez]

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.

We aren't a democracy. We were never meant to be. Why is that so difficult to understand?

So what's the point of Election Day then?

Aye --- there's the rub.

This idiot Avatar is a lightweight who doesn't read anything and doesn't know anything. The founding fathers never made a distinction between a republic vs a democracy. They are indeed one and the same in the eyes of the founding fathers. The founding fathers never intended for the electoral college "majority" to override the popular vote majority except in extreme circumstances (such as a dangerous fanatic such as Trump becoming President. However, since Trump didn't win the popular vote, it's a moot point). The founding fathers wanted the electoral college voters to reflect the will of the people. In 2016, the will of the American people is Hillary Clinton for President.

 

[Pogo]

Outside of California, Trump won the popular vote.

That's the most pathetic nonargument in the entire thread. "If we just hadn't given up those six touchdowns we coulda wont the game!" Poster please. Cry me a river.

One state doesn't get to be over represented. They had 55 EC votes, and Hillary won them all.

"One state" gets the same representation basis as every other state does. ANY state. You just continue to whine because there's a state that sees things differently from you, so you want to wipe them off the map. Whelp -- **** you.

And btw Hillary didn't "win them all", she won X number of votes compared to Y number for Rump. It's the state of Califonia ---- and 47 other states ---- who decide to award all of their EVs to whoever comes out on top, as if everybody in that state who voted differently should have just stayed home. And *THAT* is the main problem with the EC. And it's not because the Constitution calls for it --- it's because the states do. So take your whining to fifty state legislatures and put it where it will do some good so we can stop sending millions of voters home saying "you suck, your vote didn't even count, BUH-bye now", willya?

It's also quite stupid to assume if it was a popular vote, that the results would had been the same. Republicans wouldn't stay home in states like CA ad NY, and there would be millions more red votes.

It would be, and nobody's assuming that so it's equally stupid to make a strawman out of it. Had the system been a straight PV, obviously *both* (actually ALL) candidates would have campaigned differently. They'd go wherever they had a chance to win voters over. Hillary for instance might have gone to Alaska. (Nobody goes to Alaska or Hawaìi because they have the EV already parceled out. That's how little their votes count.)

But yes there would be millions more "red" votes as well as millions more "blue" ones. That's another effect of the EC as it's implemented ---- it discourages voting at all in most states because hey, the state EV is already decided and whether you agree or disagree with the state, or just stay home, the individual voter's action mean absolutely jack squat nothing bupkis zero. So those millions of voters have no reason to go vote, and they know it.

Trump said if it was a popular vote the candidates would spend most of their time in NY and CA.

Rump has never been a politician. Hell, he's never even held a job. The conclusion is a non sequitur anyway --- Rump might spend time in California yes, and he already LIVES IN and GREW UP IN New York, so it's hardly necessary --- but that's only because he's way behind in both.

What's far more likely is that Rump goes to say, Massachusetts, and Hillary goes to West Virginia and Rump goes to Minnesota and Hillary to Kansas ----- places where they don't now bother to go because the ******* EV system automatically locks them into being "Blue" or "Red" states, ergo the "Red" and "Blue" candidates don't bother to contest, hence those voters never see or hear from the other side, hence they just keep on doing what they've always done, for no other reason THAN that's what they've always done, and for yet another year you have "red" and "blue" states which is a completely bogus bullshit term that would not exist without the Electoral College system that CREATES those divisions.

And that's --- say it with me now ---- yet another effect of the Electrical College; it not only creates artificial bullshit divisions all over the country but it perpetuates those divisions and the Duopoly system that keeps this country mired in a binary bullshit paradigm.

Even in the red states in middle America, more would come out knowing all their votes counted.

As they would everywhere, in ALL states, if the EC system didn't just toss their vote in the trash can --- because these artificial bullshit terms "red state" and "blue state" and "swing state" -------- would not exist. It's only this arcane wackadoodle EC system that creates them and keeps this country mired in a primitive, binary, artificially-divided shit-world of Duopoly where we keep doing the same thing over and over expecting different results.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

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.

We aren't a democracy. We were never meant to be. Why is that so difficult to understand?

So what's the point of Election Day then?

Aye --- there's the rub.

This idiot Avatar is a lightweight who doesn't read anything and doesn't know anything. The founding fathers never made a distinction between a republic vs a democracy. They are indeed one and the same in the eyes of the founding fathers. The founding fathers never intended for the electoral college "majority" to override the popular vote majority except in extreme circumstances (such as a dangerous fanatic such as Trump becoming President. However, since Trump didn't win the popular vote, it's a moot point). The founding fathers wanted the electoral college voters to reflect the will of the people. In 2016, the will of the American people is Hillary Clinton for President.

No it isn't it is the "will" of a bunch of illegals in California. By the way I notice you ran away after I posted the facts of the NC districts.

 

[Pogo]

Not one liberal is going to "let this go." We're going to remind you that Hillary won the popular vote for the nest 4 years.

President '"***** grabber" elect does not have a mandate -- period.

Go right on ahead. We'll just remind you Trump won the EC vote. California doesn't get to determine the President with all their illegals voting. That's exactly why we have an EC, to shield the country from fraudulent states like CA.

I stand corrected "Waaah -- if we don't count California" is not the stupidest argument after all. THIS Is.

Not only "don't count California" but now there are phantom "illegal voters" that nobody has an iota of evidence for --- just an idea somebody made up, presumably translated from Macedonian.

I misunderestimated how pathetic you are.