Hillary won the popular vote ... so???

What would have happened if the rules in the last election were switched to popular vote?

  • Hillary would still have won by the exact same 3 million popular vote margin

  • Trump would have run a different campaign and won the popular vote

  • It still would have been close, but there's no way to know who would have won


Results are only viewable after voting.

kaz

Diamond Member
Joined
Dec 1, 2010
Messages
54,640
Reaction score
5,556
Points
1,840
Location
Independence Hall
You hear this from leftists all the time. It's irrelevant because that isn't how Presidential elections are run according to the Constitution. But this thread isn't about that. This thread is about how it's still irrelevant because:

1) Voters know if their candidate has a chance in their State. There are tens of millions of Republicans in California, New York, Illinois, Massachusetts, Maryland and other deep blue States who knew Trump had no chance. And there are millions of Democrats in deep red States. Three million is a small margin, there is no way to know who would have shown up or how they would have voted if we had different rules. Many Republicans voted for Gary Johnson (I know many of them) or didn't show up. And many leftists voted for Jill Stein or didn't show up

2) Neither Hillary nor Trump would have run the campaign they did if the election had different rules. That was decisive in this election as Trump won because he focused more on the light blue States in the Midwest than Hillary. Something he'd have never done if the rules were the popular vote

So Democrats, are you just lying or are you actually so stupid you really don't grasp this?
 

mudwhistle

Diamond Member
Joined
Jul 21, 2009
Messages
93,656
Reaction score
19,921
Points
2,220
Location
Clarksville, TN...Born in Missoula MT
You hear this from leftists all the time. It's irrelevant because that isn't how Presidential elections are run according to the Constitution. But this thread isn't about that. This thread is about how it's still irrelevant because:

1) Voters know if their candidate has a chance in their State. There are tens of millions of Republicans in California, New York, Illinois, Massachusetts, Maryland and other deep blue States who knew Trump had no chance. And there are millions of Democrats in deep red States. Three million is a small margin, there is no way to know who would have shown up or how they would have voted if we had different rules. Many Republicans voted for Gary Johnson (I know many of them) or didn't show up. And many leftists voted for Jill Stein or didn't show up

2) Neither Hillary nor Trump would have run the campaign they did if the election had different rules. That was decisive in this election as Trump won because he focused more on the light blue States in the Midwest than Hillary. Something he'd have never done if the rules were the popular vote

So Democrats, are you just lying or are you actually so stupid you really don't grasp this?
Trump won the popular vote except for the criminal state of California.
Since we've clearly established that CA Gov. Jerry Brown doesn't believe in following the rules, it's highly possible that many of the extra 2.8 million votes Hillary got after Trump won the election were illegally manufactured.
 
Last edited:

Mac1958

Diamond Member
Joined
Dec 8, 2011
Messages
68,654
Reaction score
14,566
Points
2,210
Location
Opposing Authoritarian Ideological Fundamentalism.
She lost even though she received three million more votes. If the Republicans want to pretend that the EC vote gives them some kind of mandate, right in the face of the popular vote, that's up to them. You'd think they would realize that losing the popular vote should at least be a mitigating consideration, but that has not happened.

The next elections are coming up, and we'll see how that worked out for them.
.
 
OP
kaz

kaz

Diamond Member
Joined
Dec 1, 2010
Messages
54,640
Reaction score
5,556
Points
1,840
Location
Independence Hall
She lost even though she received three million more votes. If the Republicans want to pretend that the EC vote gives them some kind of mandate, right in the face of the popular vote, that's up to them. You'd think they would realize that losing the popular vote should at least be a mitigating consideration, but that has not happened.

The next elections are coming up, and we'll see how that worked out for them.
.
Nowhere did I say anything about a "mandate." The OP is about whether Democrats grasp basic logic or not. Obviously from this post, you don't since you wrote the second reply in the thread and completely whiffed on the subject.

The question is whether you actually believe your crap that voters knowing the rules were different would not have changed the results of the election. Do you grasp that voters knowing ex-ante the rules were different would have changed the vote and you're lying? Or do you not grasp that and you're just plain stupid? That is the question
 

Mac1958

Diamond Member
Joined
Dec 8, 2011
Messages
68,654
Reaction score
14,566
Points
2,210
Location
Opposing Authoritarian Ideological Fundamentalism.
She lost even though she received three million more votes. If the Republicans want to pretend that the EC vote gives them some kind of mandate, right in the face of the popular vote, that's up to them. You'd think they would realize that losing the popular vote should at least be a mitigating consideration, but that has not happened.

The next elections are coming up, and we'll see how that worked out for them.
.
Nowhere did I say anything about a "mandate." The post is about whether Democrats grasp basic logic or not. Obviously from this post, you don't since you wrote the second reply in the thread and completely whiffed on the subject.

The question is whether you actually believe your crap that voters knowing the rules were different would not have changed the results of the election. Do you grasp that? Or not? That is the question
I haven't seen Democrats saying what you claim.

Please provide a link and I'll be happy to look at it.
.
 

BluesLegend

Diamond Member
Joined
Sep 7, 2014
Messages
45,822
Reaction score
9,933
Points
2,410
Location
Trump's Army
She lost even though she received three million more votes. If the Republicans want to pretend that the EC vote gives them some kind of mandate, right in the face of the popular vote, that's up to them. You'd think they would realize that losing the popular vote should at least be a mitigating consideration, but that has not happened.

The next elections are coming up, and we'll see how that worked out for them.
.
We don't know who would have won a popular vote election because a popular vote election was never held. The campaign strategy wasn't designed to win the popular vote, no popular vote campaign stops, no popular vote campaign ads, its utterly ridiculous to give any consideration to the so called popular vote.
 

frigidweirdo

Platinum Member
Joined
Mar 7, 2014
Messages
32,238
Reaction score
3,229
Points
1,130
You hear this from leftists all the time. It's irrelevant because that isn't how Presidential elections are run according to the Constitution. But this thread isn't about that. This thread is about how it's still irrelevant because:

1) Voters know if their candidate has a chance in their State. There are tens of millions of Republicans in California, New York, Illinois, Massachusetts, Maryland and other deep blue States who knew Trump had no chance. And there are millions of Democrats in deep red States. Three million is a small margin, there is no way to know who would have shown up or how they would have voted if we had different rules. Many Republicans voted for Gary Johnson (I know many of them) or didn't show up. And many leftists voted for Jill Stein or didn't show up

2) Neither Hillary nor Trump would have run the campaign they did if the election had different rules. That was decisive in this election as Trump won because he focused more on the light blue States in the Midwest than Hillary. Something he'd have never done if the rules were the popular vote

So Democrats, are you just lying or are you actually so stupid you really don't grasp this?
No, it's not how the elections are run. It's how they SHOULD BE RUN.

Surely THE PEOPLE should have a say in who their leaders are. Rather than a political system.

Why should some people have more votes than others? Why should people in one state get a say on who the president is, while people in another state don't?

How is that fair, and how does that make democracy?
 
OP
kaz

kaz

Diamond Member
Joined
Dec 1, 2010
Messages
54,640
Reaction score
5,556
Points
1,840
Location
Independence Hall
She lost even though she received three million more votes. If the Republicans want to pretend that the EC vote gives them some kind of mandate, right in the face of the popular vote, that's up to them. You'd think they would realize that losing the popular vote should at least be a mitigating consideration, but that has not happened.

The next elections are coming up, and we'll see how that worked out for them.
.
Nowhere did I say anything about a "mandate." The post is about whether Democrats grasp basic logic or not. Obviously from this post, you don't since you wrote the second reply in the thread and completely whiffed on the subject.

The question is whether you actually believe your crap that voters knowing the rules were different would not have changed the results of the election. Do you grasp that? Or not? That is the question
I haven't seen Democrats saying what you claim.

Please provide a link and I'll be happy to look at it.
.
You haven't seen Democrats claim that Hillary isn't the legitimate winner because she won the popular vote???

:auiqs.jpg::auiqs.jpg::auiqs.jpg::auiqs.jpg::auiqs.jpg::auiqs.jpg::auiqs.jpg::auiqs.jpg::auiqs.jpg::auiqs.jpg::auiqs.jpg::auiqs.jpg::auiqs.jpg:

You'd cut in line in Jamestown to get the kool-aid first!!!!

Obviously you're lying. It's hysterical when leftists tell lies that if you are to be believed makes you look worse than just thinking you're a liar
 
OP
kaz

kaz

Diamond Member
Joined
Dec 1, 2010
Messages
54,640
Reaction score
5,556
Points
1,840
Location
Independence Hall
You hear this from leftists all the time. It's irrelevant because that isn't how Presidential elections are run according to the Constitution. But this thread isn't about that. This thread is about how it's still irrelevant because:

1) Voters know if their candidate has a chance in their State. There are tens of millions of Republicans in California, New York, Illinois, Massachusetts, Maryland and other deep blue States who knew Trump had no chance. And there are millions of Democrats in deep red States. Three million is a small margin, there is no way to know who would have shown up or how they would have voted if we had different rules. Many Republicans voted for Gary Johnson (I know many of them) or didn't show up. And many leftists voted for Jill Stein or didn't show up

2) Neither Hillary nor Trump would have run the campaign they did if the election had different rules. That was decisive in this election as Trump won because he focused more on the light blue States in the Midwest than Hillary. Something he'd have never done if the rules were the popular vote

So Democrats, are you just lying or are you actually so stupid you really don't grasp this?
No, it's not how the elections are run. It's how they SHOULD BE RUN.

Surely THE PEOPLE should have a say in who their leaders are. Rather than a political system.

Why should some people have more votes than others? Why should people in one state get a say on who the president is, while people in another state don't?

How is that fair, and how does that make democracy?
You're in the wrong thread. Nowhere did I take a position in the OP about how elections "should" be run. I disagree with you, but I'm not going to let you derail the thread.

My question is whether leftists know you are lying when you claim that Hillary would have won this election if the rules were changed ex-ante in this election. Do you? That is the question in this thread
 

Mac1958

Diamond Member
Joined
Dec 8, 2011
Messages
68,654
Reaction score
14,566
Points
2,210
Location
Opposing Authoritarian Ideological Fundamentalism.
She lost even though she received three million more votes. If the Republicans want to pretend that the EC vote gives them some kind of mandate, right in the face of the popular vote, that's up to them. You'd think they would realize that losing the popular vote should at least be a mitigating consideration, but that has not happened.

The next elections are coming up, and we'll see how that worked out for them.
.
Nowhere did I say anything about a "mandate." The post is about whether Democrats grasp basic logic or not. Obviously from this post, you don't since you wrote the second reply in the thread and completely whiffed on the subject.

The question is whether you actually believe your crap that voters knowing the rules were different would not have changed the results of the election. Do you grasp that? Or not? That is the question
I haven't seen Democrats saying what you claim.

Please provide a link and I'll be happy to look at it.
.
You haven't seen Democrats claim that Hillary isn't the legitimate winner because she won the popular vote???

:auiqs.jpg::auiqs.jpg::auiqs.jpg::auiqs.jpg::auiqs.jpg::auiqs.jpg::auiqs.jpg::auiqs.jpg::auiqs.jpg::auiqs.jpg::auiqs.jpg::auiqs.jpg::auiqs.jpg:

You'd cut in line in Jamestown to get the kool-aid first!!!!

Obviously you're lying. It's hysterical when leftists tell lies that if you are to be believed makes you look worse than just thinking you're a liar
So that was the point of the OP?

No, I've seen them say that Trump is not legitimate, that's correct.

That's how partisans are, on both ends.

You don't really think your "side" doesn't do the same?
.
 

Weatherman2020

Diamond Member
Joined
Mar 3, 2013
Messages
61,036
Reaction score
17,284
Points
2,250
Location
Left Coast, Classified
You hear this from leftists all the time. It's irrelevant because that isn't how Presidential elections are run according to the Constitution. But this thread isn't about that. This thread is about how it's still irrelevant because:

1) Voters know if their candidate has a chance in their State. There are tens of millions of Republicans in California, New York, Illinois, Massachusetts, Maryland and other deep blue States who knew Trump had no chance. And there are millions of Democrats in deep red States. Three million is a small margin, there is no way to know who would have shown up or how they would have voted if we had different rules. Many Republicans voted for Gary Johnson (I know many of them) or didn't show up. And many leftists voted for Jill Stein or didn't show up

2) Neither Hillary nor Trump would have run the campaign they did if the election had different rules. That was decisive in this election as Trump won because he focused more on the light blue States in the Midwest than Hillary. Something he'd have never done if the rules were the popular vote

So Democrats, are you just lying or are you actually so stupid you really don't grasp this?
Nobody gives a crap who 5 moonbat counties in KKKalifornia voted for except moonbats.
 
  • Thanks
Reactions: kaz

depotoo

Diamond Member
Joined
Sep 9, 2012
Messages
38,829
Reaction score
11,190
Points
1,360
Nonsense. 30 out of 50 states voted for Trump. Only 20 voted for Hillary. One region can not decide for an entire country, thus why the electoral college was put in place.
She lost even though she received three million more votes. If the Republicans want to pretend that the EC vote gives them some kind of mandate, right in the face of the popular vote, that's up to them. You'd think they would realize that losing the popular vote should at least be a mitigating consideration, but that has not happened.

The next elections are coming up, and we'll see how that worked out for them.
.
 

Mac1958

Diamond Member
Joined
Dec 8, 2011
Messages
68,654
Reaction score
14,566
Points
2,210
Location
Opposing Authoritarian Ideological Fundamentalism.
Nonsense. 30 out of 50 states voted for Trump. Only 20 voted for Hillary. One region can not decide for an entire country, thus why the electoral college was put in place.
She lost even though she received three million more votes. If the Republicans want to pretend that the EC vote gives them some kind of mandate, right in the face of the popular vote, that's up to them. You'd think they would realize that losing the popular vote should at least be a mitigating consideration, but that has not happened.

The next elections are coming up, and we'll see how that worked out for them.
.
It doesn't really matter to me, nor has it ever. He's the President, it is what it is.

More elections on the way soon enough.
.
 

frigidweirdo

Platinum Member
Joined
Mar 7, 2014
Messages
32,238
Reaction score
3,229
Points
1,130
You hear this from leftists all the time. It's irrelevant because that isn't how Presidential elections are run according to the Constitution. But this thread isn't about that. This thread is about how it's still irrelevant because:

1) Voters know if their candidate has a chance in their State. There are tens of millions of Republicans in California, New York, Illinois, Massachusetts, Maryland and other deep blue States who knew Trump had no chance. And there are millions of Democrats in deep red States. Three million is a small margin, there is no way to know who would have shown up or how they would have voted if we had different rules. Many Republicans voted for Gary Johnson (I know many of them) or didn't show up. And many leftists voted for Jill Stein or didn't show up

2) Neither Hillary nor Trump would have run the campaign they did if the election had different rules. That was decisive in this election as Trump won because he focused more on the light blue States in the Midwest than Hillary. Something he'd have never done if the rules were the popular vote

So Democrats, are you just lying or are you actually so stupid you really don't grasp this?
No, it's not how the elections are run. It's how they SHOULD BE RUN.

Surely THE PEOPLE should have a say in who their leaders are. Rather than a political system.

Why should some people have more votes than others? Why should people in one state get a say on who the president is, while people in another state don't?

How is that fair, and how does that make democracy?
You're in the wrong thread. Nowhere did I take a position in the OP about how elections "should" be run. I disagree with you, but I'm not going to let you derail the thread.

My question is whether leftists know you are lying when you claim that Hillary would have won this election if the rules were changed ex-ante in this election. Do you? That is the question in this thread
Had the rules been different, then it depends on what the rules were.

If PR existed then I think Hillary would have had more chance because Trump simply wouldn't have stood a chance. It depends of course how PR would be implemented.

If it were PR in the House, with a Presidential election run off election, then they'd have been more viable candidates with each party choosing their own candidate, which wouldn't have been Trump unless he made his own party, and who'd have followed him?

Were the EC elected based on a proportional system, then people might start choosing other candidates.

It's a pretty pointless task saying "if the system were different..." well, what system? There are loads.
 
OP
kaz

kaz

Diamond Member
Joined
Dec 1, 2010
Messages
54,640
Reaction score
5,556
Points
1,840
Location
Independence Hall
She lost even though she received three million more votes. If the Republicans want to pretend that the EC vote gives them some kind of mandate, right in the face of the popular vote, that's up to them. You'd think they would realize that losing the popular vote should at least be a mitigating consideration, but that has not happened.

The next elections are coming up, and we'll see how that worked out for them.
.
Nowhere did I say anything about a "mandate." The post is about whether Democrats grasp basic logic or not. Obviously from this post, you don't since you wrote the second reply in the thread and completely whiffed on the subject.

The question is whether you actually believe your crap that voters knowing the rules were different would not have changed the results of the election. Do you grasp that? Or not? That is the question
I haven't seen Democrats saying what you claim.

Please provide a link and I'll be happy to look at it.
.
You haven't seen Democrats claim that Hillary isn't the legitimate winner because she won the popular vote???

:auiqs.jpg::auiqs.jpg::auiqs.jpg::auiqs.jpg::auiqs.jpg::auiqs.jpg::auiqs.jpg::auiqs.jpg::auiqs.jpg::auiqs.jpg::auiqs.jpg::auiqs.jpg::auiqs.jpg:

You'd cut in line in Jamestown to get the kool-aid first!!!!

Obviously you're lying. It's hysterical when leftists tell lies that if you are to be believed makes you look worse than just thinking you're a liar
So that was the point of the OP?

No, I've seen them say that Trump is not legitimate, that's correct.

That's how partisans are, on both ends.

You don't really think your "side" doesn't do the same?
.
Libertarians are gerrymandering? Where are they doing that?

Another leftist idiot who can't process beyond not leftist = Republican.

That while you lecture Republicans you're smarter than they are because you aren't all black and white like they are. Leftists are totally black and white, as you demonstrate again.

As to your question, so explain how to say "Trump is not legitimate" isn't assuming what I point out in my op that we don't know how the election would have turned out if the rules were different???
 

BluesLegend

Diamond Member
Joined
Sep 7, 2014
Messages
45,822
Reaction score
9,933
Points
2,410
Location
Trump's Army
This popular vote crap is like saying Hillary won something because she got more 1st downs in a football game vs scoring the most points. Trump crushed her 42 to 10 but she won something because she got more 1st downs? :auiqs.jpg:
 

frigidweirdo

Platinum Member
Joined
Mar 7, 2014
Messages
32,238
Reaction score
3,229
Points
1,130
Nonsense. 30 out of 50 states voted for Trump. Only 20 voted for Hillary. One region can not decide for an entire country, thus why the electoral college was put in place.
She lost even though she received three million more votes. If the Republicans want to pretend that the EC vote gives them some kind of mandate, right in the face of the popular vote, that's up to them. You'd think they would realize that losing the popular vote should at least be a mitigating consideration, but that has not happened.

The next elections are coming up, and we'll see how that worked out for them.
.
But then only a few states are making this decision. Only 12 states actually have the power to decide an Presidential election today.

The system is broken.

With a PR style system, no one area of the country would decide, the whole country would decide together as a democratic unit, rather than some kind of "you've got three votes, but you've only got one, but it doesn't matter because neither of you actually matter anyway, so fuck off" as exists right now.
 

depotoo

Diamond Member
Joined
Sep 9, 2012
Messages
38,829
Reaction score
11,190
Points
1,360
Obama carried only 26 states in 2012. Did you see the right constantly claiming he was illegitimate?
She lost even though she received three million more votes. If the Republicans want to pretend that the EC vote gives them some kind of mandate, right in the face of the popular vote, that's up to them. You'd think they would realize that losing the popular vote should at least be a mitigating consideration, but that has not happened.

The next elections are coming up, and we'll see how that worked out for them.
.
Nowhere did I say anything about a "mandate." The post is about whether Democrats grasp basic logic or not. Obviously from this post, you don't since you wrote the second reply in the thread and completely whiffed on the subject.

The question is whether you actually believe your crap that voters knowing the rules were different would not have changed the results of the election. Do you grasp that? Or not? That is the question
I haven't seen Democrats saying what you claim.

Please provide a link and I'll be happy to look at it.
.
You haven't seen Democrats claim that Hillary isn't the legitimate winner because she won the popular vote???

:auiqs.jpg::auiqs.jpg::auiqs.jpg::auiqs.jpg::auiqs.jpg::auiqs.jpg::auiqs.jpg::auiqs.jpg::auiqs.jpg::auiqs.jpg::auiqs.jpg::auiqs.jpg::auiqs.jpg:

You'd cut in line in Jamestown to get the kool-aid first!!!!

Obviously you're lying. It's hysterical when leftists tell lies that if you are to be believed makes you look worse than just thinking you're a liar
So that was the point of the OP?

No, I've seen them say that Trump is not legitimate, that's correct.

That's how partisans are, on both ends.

You don't really think your "side" doesn't do the same?
.
 

New Topics

Most reactions - Past 7 days

Forum List

Top