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

[Flash]

 

[easyt65]

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

Thank goodness for those 3 Million ILLEGAL Votes or Snowflakes wouldn't have anything upon which to build their 'Conspiratorial Butthurt Whining' on.



'Clinton Leads by 1.7 Million in Popular Vote'

Yeah, that and $8 will still only get you a Latte at Starbucks.

 

[easyt65]

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.)

 

[Sun Devil 92]

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.

Who cares what you think ?

That's the spirit. If you want to live in your own bubble.

What bubble would that be. The one the founders lived in ?

 

[Weatherman2020]

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.

And Trump got 200 million more votes than George Washington did, since we are comparing apples and oranges.

 

[Yousaidwhat]

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.

Your leader has been selected.

You can stop counting now.

Actually, that doesn't happen til December 19th.

It's so cute to see the legion of children who support Trump learning about elections for the first time.

No shit Sherlock.

It's so cute to watch you shit yourself over an election.

Do you actually believe that Hillary is going to be coronated Queen?

 

[Yousaidwhat]

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.

To bad she didn't get as much more than Obama's 10 million more she would be president shit for brains

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.

To bad she didn't get as much more than Obama's 10 million more she would be president shit for brains

Yeah, a democrat has to win by 10 million votes in order to "win" the presidency. Just like Democratic House candidates have to win 54% of the votes nationwide just to have any chance of taking control of the House of Representatives, due to fascist Repug gerrymandering.

That makes a lot of sense, Repug goober assfuck.

Panties in a bunch?

Heartbroken?

No Kewpie doll today.

Cya in 4 years.

 

[GaryDog]

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.

Who cares what you think ?

That's the spirit. If you want to live in your own bubble.

What bubble would that be. The one the founders lived in ?

Good example, considering the founders produced the EC as a compromise with slaveholding states.

 

[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...

 

[Sun Devil 92]

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.

Who cares what you think ?

That's the spirit. If you want to live in your own bubble.

What bubble would that be. The one the founders lived in ?

Good example, considering the founders produced the EC as a compromise with slaveholding states.

The fact that they were slaveholding states is pretty irrelevant. And if you don't approve of the founders and their product....feel free to buy a ticket to Tripoli.

Everything the founders did was pointed towards states autonomy.

And this method of election was intended to prevent a state, like California, from completely running the show.

It is brilliant in it's composition.

What it says is that someone only need get a majority of people in a number of states that represents a majority of the EC. In theory, a candidate could win about 34% of the popular vote and still win the election.

I realize that this takes away people's argument that Hillary is the people's choice. But we don't have a people's choice. We have a states choice.

Sorry...can't help that.

 

[Pogo]

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!"

 

[Pogo]

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.

Who cares what you think ?

That's the spirit. If you want to live in your own bubble.

What bubble would that be. The one the founders lived in ?

Good example, considering the founders produced the EC as a compromise with slaveholding states.

The fact that they were slaveholding states is pretty irrelevant. And if you don't approve of the founders and their product....feel free to buy a ticket to Tripoli.

Everything the founders did was pointed towards states autonomy.

And this method of election was intended to prevent a state, like California, from completely running the show.

Actually California didn't exist yet. What did exist of that scale was Virginia. And when they drew all this up, they deliberately skewed more EVs to the South by counting their slaves as 3/5 of a person --- which inflated their representation numbers and hence their EV power.

The direct result of that was that six of our first seven Presidents were slaveholders from the South ---- specifically, from Virginia.

Some "preventing a state from running the show" huh?

That's history, Bub. So no, it's not "irrelevant" at all.

 

[candycorn]

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.

Nobody cares;

That and a dollar will buy you a cup of coffee…(not at Starbucks)

 

[Sun Devil 92]

Who cares what you think ?

That's the spirit. If you want to live in your own bubble.

What bubble would that be. The one the founders lived in ?

Good example, considering the founders produced the EC as a compromise with slaveholding states.

The fact that they were slaveholding states is pretty irrelevant. And if you don't approve of the founders and their product....feel free to buy a ticket to Tripoli.

Everything the founders did was pointed towards states autonomy.

And this method of election was intended to prevent a state, like California, from completely running the show.

Actually California didn't exist yet. What did exist of that scale was Virginia. And when they drew all this up, they deliberately skewed more EVs to the South by counting their slaves as 3/5 of a person --- which inflated their representation numbers and hence their EV power.

The direct result of that was that six of our first seven Presidents were slaveholders from the South ---- specifically, from Virginia.

Some "preventing a state from running the show" huh?

That's history, Bub.

To be sure.....which tells you that slaveholders were a majority in a "majority" of states.

Got no problem with that.

Recall the election of 1800 was basically a neck and neck deal, even though Jefferson won something like 60% of the popular vote. From what I recall, Jefferson was actually elected by the House of Representatives.

I believe that is history too......

 

[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.

 

[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

 

[Pogo]

To be sure.....which tells you that slaveholders were a majority in a "majority" of states.

Got no problem with that.

Isn't that revealing.
Not the point though. Nor does it tell us whether "slaveholders were a majority" in any state. Rather the point is that (a) it was deliberately skewed to bolster the slaveholding states --- who didn't have the numbers of eligible voters ... unless they counted slaves, while of course denying them any voice; in other words the finagled both EVs and power in Congress ("Slave Power" the Republicans called it) on the backs of people who had no say in it; and (b) that contrary to the myth you've been told about preventing an influential state from running the show, exactly the opposite happened.

Recall the election of 1800 was basically a neck and neck deal, even though Jefferson won something like 60% of the popular vote. From what I recall, Jefferson was actually elected by the House of Representatives.

I believe that is history too......

Do ya now. Actually electors were commonly chosen by state legislatures directly, so there wouldn't have been a popular vote to compare candidates. Wasn't a whole lotta popular votin' goin' on.

But here's a look at that EV layout ---- notice the EV size of Virginia, relative to everybody else.

 

[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...

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 "..

 

[eagle7_31]

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.

And if the situation were reversed you and most other left wingers would hardly utter a word.

 

[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...

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.