Revisiting That Dirty Popular Vote Thing Again

[MisterBeale]

Ok, she got millions and millions more votes than your blob

Correct, she had millions votes more. And Trump won 10 more states. Got it?

Yeahbut, they were all within a few counties.

She could have had a BILLION more votes in California but once you win a state, you WON it.

Presidential elections are 50 STATE elections!

I personally like and endorse the EC over the popular vote.

That doesn’t change the fact that HRC got more votes than the Cheeto

It also doesn't change that fact that that is a meaningless claim. It's like a losing football team saying "Well, we gained yards than the other team" - suggesting that, if the game had been scored on yardage rather than points, they would have one. But it's an empty claim. If the game had been scored on yardage, the other team would have played differently. They would have focused on gaining yards, rather than scoring points. It's very possible they'd have still won.

Sorry about the sports analogy - but hopefully you get the point.

If it’s meaningless...why are you so bothered by the fact that she got millions more votes than your blob?

Me thinks that your bothered because it somehow—in your mind—delegitimizes the blob’s Presidency. Grow up

Folks are bothered by California's vote rigging.

. . . and then? When the Federal government asked nicely to look at those tallies? California told it to go pound sand.

So every time some Clinton supporter brings up this bullshit about, "she had millions votes more," I am reminded that the present administration wanted to see the paper trail, just like they wanted to see the work that Crosscheck did, but both times, they were told;

"GO POUND SAND."

So yeah, most folks don't buy that shit, that dog don't hunt.

 

[Care4all]

So what? Trump won more states.

And if popular vote counts, why Barry was presidential candidate, and not her, since she had more votes than him in Dem Primaries?

Hillary won the popular vote

No, she didn't. There was no popular vote election in 2016. If there had been, the vote totals would have been different. The entire election would have been different.

Ok, she got millions and millions more votes than your blob

Correct, she had millions votes more. And Trump won 10 more states. Got it?

Yeahbut, they were all within a few counties.

She could have had a BILLION more votes in California but once you win a state, you WON it.

Presidential elections are 50 STATE elections!

If electing a president were simply 50 state elections, the 50 states picking, then what is the purpose of the electors and the electoral college vote?? Each State would just get one vote....

but that is NOT how it works and NOT how the founders created it.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Hillary won the popular vote

No, she didn't. There was no popular vote election in 2016. If there had been, the vote totals would have been different. The entire election would have been different.

Ok, she got millions and millions more votes than your blob

Correct, she had millions votes more. And Trump won 10 more states. Got it?

Yeahbut, they were all within a few counties.

She could have had a BILLION more votes in California but once you win a state, you WON it.

Presidential elections are 50 STATE elections!

If electing a president were simply 50 state elections, the 50 states picking, then what is the purpose of the electors and the electoral college vote?? Each State would just get one vote....

but that is NOT how it works and NOT how the founders created it.

Maybe that's the way it should work. After all, if the left can complain about changing the EC, why not us complain about a single state vote count?

 

[candycorn]

If it’s meaningless...why are you so bothered by the fact that she got millions more votes than your blob?

First of all, he's not my blob. I despise Trump. Second, it doesn't bother me. I'm just pointing out that your claim doesn't mean what you think it means.

Yet here you are arguing about something you claim is meaningless 3 plus years after the fact.

 

[toobfreak]

Hillary won the popular vote

No, she didn't. There was no popular vote election in 2016. If there had been, the vote totals would have been different. The entire election would have been different.

Ok, she got millions and millions more votes than your blob

Correct, she had millions votes more. And Trump won 10 more states. Got it?

Yeahbut, they were all within a few counties.

She could have had a BILLION more votes in California but once you win a state, you WON it.

Presidential elections are 50 STATE elections!

If electing a president were simply 50 state elections, the 50 states picking, then what is the purpose of the electors and the electoral college vote?? Each State would just get one vote....

but that is NOT how it works and NOT how the founders created it.

Jesus, do you fuckheads merely ACT dumb or are you really that stupid?

How do you now think a state has an election with itself?

How could EVEN YOU be on this board for THIRTEEN YEARS and still not know or learn anything?

 

[toobfreak]

No, she didn't. There was no popular vote election in 2016. If there had been, the vote totals would have been different. The entire election would have been different.

Ok, she got millions and millions more votes than your blob

Correct, she had millions votes more. And Trump won 10 more states. Got it?

Yeahbut, they were all within a few counties.

She could have had a BILLION more votes in California but once you win a state, you WON it.

Presidential elections are 50 STATE elections!

If electing a president were simply 50 state elections, the 50 states picking, then what is the purpose of the electors and the electoral college vote?? Each State would just get one vote....

but that is NOT how it works and NOT how the founders created it.

Maybe that's the way it should work. After all, if the left can complain about changing the EC, why not us complain about a single state vote count?

Look at it this way, Ray, 50 states, 50 votes. At last, finally, the Left would get the popular vote they so much want.

Then Trump would have beaten Hillary 30 votes to 20.

Now he SMASHES her with 50% more votes and a 66.6% majority!

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Ok, she got millions and millions more votes than your blob

Correct, she had millions votes more. And Trump won 10 more states. Got it?

Yeahbut, they were all within a few counties.

She could have had a BILLION more votes in California but once you win a state, you WON it.

Presidential elections are 50 STATE elections!

If electing a president were simply 50 state elections, the 50 states picking, then what is the purpose of the electors and the electoral college vote?? Each State would just get one vote....

but that is NOT how it works and NOT how the founders created it.

Maybe that's the way it should work. After all, if the left can complain about changing the EC, why not us complain about a single state vote count?

Look at it this way, Ray, 50 states, 50 votes. At last, finally, the Left would get the popular vote they so much want.

When they lose, they are always trying to rig the elections in their favor. Maybe they should think about what it would be like if we did the same.

The left are just sore losers. Always were and always will be. Instead of focusing on changing their policies to meet the satisfaction of the public, keep the lousy policies and change the way we vote instead.

 

[Care4all]

No, she didn't. There was no popular vote election in 2016. If there had been, the vote totals would have been different. The entire election would have been different.

Ok, she got millions and millions more votes than your blob

Correct, she had millions votes more. And Trump won 10 more states. Got it?

Yeahbut, they were all within a few counties.

She could have had a BILLION more votes in California but once you win a state, you WON it.

Presidential elections are 50 STATE elections!

If electing a president were simply 50 state elections, the 50 states picking, then what is the purpose of the electors and the electoral college vote?? Each State would just get one vote....

but that is NOT how it works and NOT how the founders created it.

Maybe that's the way it should work. After all, if the left can complain about changing the EC, why not us complain about a single state vote count?

Won't happen, either way. The EC is here to stay.

 

[bendog]

I am sick of hearing that Hillary won the "popular vote" when that doesn't even count for anything! What counts is the popular vote AT THE STATE LEVEL, after that, it becomes 50 STATE elections. You don't win a country,

YOU WIN STATES.

You'd think democrats and Hillary would KNOW that considering that she was both First Lady, New York Senator and Secretary of STATE.

So I went back and wanted to look at the data a bit different way.

I'm also sick of hearing how pathetic the red states are. So I wanted to know, just what WAS each candidate really up against in 2016 and what did they really win?

In 2016, Hillary won TWENTY states, Trump won THIRTY. To win a state, you have to go up against all voters in a given state; the more people, the more likely voters so, the harder it is to win. And by winning a state, you also win and carry the voice of that state and the people that go in it. So what exactly did the 2016 candidates win?

I looked up the latest tallies of state population, and in the 20 states that Hillary won, her states total population (THE BLUE STATES) was: 2016 BLUE STATE POPULATION = 140,743,676.

And the thirty states that Trump won? 2016 RED STATE POPULATION = 163,435,276.

Yes. Trump's states have 22,691,600 more people in them. A not so small fact I've never seen mentioned before. What is the significance of this?

Trump won 30 states with nearly 23 million more people in them compared to Hillary's 20 states. Not only does that mean you had to carry sway with more people in more states (and by implication, means Trump represented a far greater diversity of the nation!), it means that there are many millions of people who either didn't vote last time or voted against Trump in states he won before who could decide to come out and vote this time or switch their vote to Trump after the recent fiasco of years of Democrats making false claims and accusations all proven wrong and spending tens of millions of dollars of hard earned taxpayer money on silly Russia investigations and a baseless, desperate, petulant, childish impeachment that was nothing more than an abuse of House power resulting in a near Constitutional crisis.

Democrats have stirred up an angry hornets nest, meantime, with the likes of who they have to represent them this time, Democrats may find many of themselves demoralized bowing to the futility.

The 50 US States Ranked By Population

In case anyone wants to check my math.

Trump has 30 states and a potential of up to TWENTY MILLION additional voters this time around, his supporters are pissed, and that is if he doesn't even win any additional states!

Democrats CAN'T feel good about that.

If you really were sick of hearing about it, you wouldn't start a thread on it. LOL

 

[toobfreak]

Correct, she had millions votes more. And Trump won 10 more states. Got it?

Yeahbut, they were all within a few counties.

She could have had a BILLION more votes in California but once you win a state, you WON it.

Presidential elections are 50 STATE elections!

If electing a president were simply 50 state elections, the 50 states picking, then what is the purpose of the electors and the electoral college vote?? Each State would just get one vote....

but that is NOT how it works and NOT how the founders created it.

Maybe that's the way it should work. After all, if the left can complain about changing the EC, why not us complain about a single state vote count?

Look at it this way, Ray, 50 states, 50 votes. At last, finally, the Left would get the popular vote they so much want.

When they lose, they are always trying to rig the elections in their favor. Maybe they should think about what it would be like if we did the same.

The left are just sore losers. Always were and always will be. Instead of focusing on changing their policies to meet the satisfaction of the public, keep the lousy policies and change the way we vote instead.

What you are really describing is the mental and emotional under-development of a CHILD.

• Children do not handle not getting their way well.

• Children will lie or cheat to come out ahead or turn things to their advantage.

• Children always remember and recount things to their advantage not as they happened, but as they WANTED them to happen.

• Children have fits when they don't get their desires met hoping that it'll somehow change the outcome.

• Children are very slow to learn from their mistakes, usually thinking that if they just keep doing something, eventually they'll get their way.

• Children always see their failures not as a result of their own actions but the result of some unfair higher authority imposed upon them (ie, a victim).

 

[toobfreak]

I am sick of hearing that Hillary won the "popular vote" when that doesn't even count for anything! What counts is the popular vote AT THE STATE LEVEL, after that, it becomes 50 STATE elections. You don't win a country,

YOU WIN STATES.

You'd think democrats and Hillary would KNOW that considering that she was both First Lady, New York Senator and Secretary of STATE.

So I went back and wanted to look at the data a bit different way.

I'm also sick of hearing how pathetic the red states are. So I wanted to know, just what WAS each candidate really up against in 2016 and what did they really win?

In 2016, Hillary won TWENTY states, Trump won THIRTY. To win a state, you have to go up against all voters in a given state; the more people, the more likely voters so, the harder it is to win. And by winning a state, you also win and carry the voice of that state and the people that go in it. So what exactly did the 2016 candidates win?

I looked up the latest tallies of state population, and in the 20 states that Hillary won, her states total population (THE BLUE STATES) was: 2016 BLUE STATE POPULATION = 140,743,676.

And the thirty states that Trump won? 2016 RED STATE POPULATION = 163,435,276.

Yes. Trump's states have 22,691,600 more people in them. A not so small fact I've never seen mentioned before. What is the significance of this?

Trump won 30 states with nearly 23 million more people in them compared to Hillary's 20 states. Not only does that mean you had to carry sway with more people in more states (and by implication, means Trump represented a far greater diversity of the nation!), it means that there are many millions of people who either didn't vote last time or voted against Trump in states he won before who could decide to come out and vote this time or switch their vote to Trump after the recent fiasco of years of Democrats making false claims and accusations all proven wrong and spending tens of millions of dollars of hard earned taxpayer money on silly Russia investigations and a baseless, desperate, petulant, childish impeachment that was nothing more than an abuse of House power resulting in a near Constitutional crisis.

Democrats have stirred up an angry hornets nest, meantime, with the likes of who they have to represent them this time, Democrats may find many of themselves demoralized bowing to the futility.

The 50 US States Ranked By Population

In case anyone wants to check my math.

Trump has 30 states and a potential of up to TWENTY MILLION additional voters this time around, his supporters are pissed, and that is if he doesn't even win any additional states!

Democrats CAN'T feel good about that.

If you really were sick of hearing about it, you wouldn't start a thread on it. LOL

So, in your Bentdick sort of universe, when you are told lies over and over again, you just keep quiet about them never speaking out?

Apparently you equate sick of hearing LIES about a topic as the same as the topic itself.

Apparently you haven't even the smattering of brains to tell the difference between HEARING about something and TALKING about something.

 

[bendog]

Ok, she got millions and millions more votes than your blob

Correct, she had millions votes more. And Trump won 10 more states. Got it?

Yeahbut, they were all within a few counties.

She could have had a BILLION more votes in California but once you win a state, you WON it.

Presidential elections are 50 STATE elections!

If electing a president were simply 50 state elections, the 50 states picking, then what is the purpose of the electors and the electoral college vote?? Each State would just get one vote....

but that is NOT how it works and NOT how the founders created it.

Maybe that's the way it should work. After all, if the left can complain about changing the EC, why not us complain about a single state vote count?

Won't happen, either way. The EC is here to stay.

The compact could end it. And what used to be anomaly in history has now occurred twice in 5 cycles, so imo it needs to go.

But the question should be … can Trump win a simple maj this time? The econ is about as good as it can get, peace is pretty much at hand …. it should be a gop blowout.

 

[bendog]

I am sick of hearing that Hillary won the "popular vote" when that doesn't even count for anything! What counts is the popular vote AT THE STATE LEVEL, after that, it becomes 50 STATE elections. You don't win a country,

YOU WIN STATES.

You'd think democrats and Hillary would KNOW that considering that she was both First Lady, New York Senator and Secretary of STATE.

So I went back and wanted to look at the data a bit different way.

I'm also sick of hearing how pathetic the red states are. So I wanted to know, just what WAS each candidate really up against in 2016 and what did they really win?

In 2016, Hillary won TWENTY states, Trump won THIRTY. To win a state, you have to go up against all voters in a given state; the more people, the more likely voters so, the harder it is to win. And by winning a state, you also win and carry the voice of that state and the people that go in it. So what exactly did the 2016 candidates win?

I looked up the latest tallies of state population, and in the 20 states that Hillary won, her states total population (THE BLUE STATES) was: 2016 BLUE STATE POPULATION = 140,743,676.

And the thirty states that Trump won? 2016 RED STATE POPULATION = 163,435,276.

Yes. Trump's states have 22,691,600 more people in them. A not so small fact I've never seen mentioned before. What is the significance of this?

Trump won 30 states with nearly 23 million more people in them compared to Hillary's 20 states. Not only does that mean you had to carry sway with more people in more states (and by implication, means Trump represented a far greater diversity of the nation!), it means that there are many millions of people who either didn't vote last time or voted against Trump in states he won before who could decide to come out and vote this time or switch their vote to Trump after the recent fiasco of years of Democrats making false claims and accusations all proven wrong and spending tens of millions of dollars of hard earned taxpayer money on silly Russia investigations and a baseless, desperate, petulant, childish impeachment that was nothing more than an abuse of House power resulting in a near Constitutional crisis.

Democrats have stirred up an angry hornets nest, meantime, with the likes of who they have to represent them this time, Democrats may find many of themselves demoralized bowing to the futility.

The 50 US States Ranked By Population

In case anyone wants to check my math.

Trump has 30 states and a potential of up to TWENTY MILLION additional voters this time around, his supporters are pissed, and that is if he doesn't even win any additional states!

Democrats CAN'T feel good about that.

If you really were sick of hearing about it, you wouldn't start a thread on it. LOL

So, in your Bentdick sort of universe, when you are told lies over and over again, you just keep quiet about them never speaking out?

Apparently you equate sick of hearing LIES about a topic as the same as the topic itself.

Apparently you haven't even the smattering of brains to tell the difference between HEARING about something and TALKING about something.

fuck you, **** edit bitchcunt

You cant even start a thread without making a joke of yourself. LOL

 

[candycorn]

Correct, she had millions votes more. And Trump won 10 more states. Got it?

Yeahbut, they were all within a few counties.

She could have had a BILLION more votes in California but once you win a state, you WON it.

Presidential elections are 50 STATE elections!

If electing a president were simply 50 state elections, the 50 states picking, then what is the purpose of the electors and the electoral college vote?? Each State would just get one vote....

but that is NOT how it works and NOT how the founders created it.

Maybe that's the way it should work. After all, if the left can complain about changing the EC, why not us complain about a single state vote count?

Won't happen, either way. The EC is here to stay.

The compact could end it. And what used to be anomaly in history has now occurred twice in 5 cycles, so imo it needs to go.

But the question should be … can Trump win a simple maj this time? The econ is about as good as it can get, peace is pretty much at hand …. it should be a gop blowout.

What would you think about a rule where the President Elect must get the plurality of the PV as well as 270 EVs?

 

[candycorn]

Yeahbut, they were all within a few counties.

She could have had a BILLION more votes in California but once you win a state, you WON it.

Presidential elections are 50 STATE elections!

If electing a president were simply 50 state elections, the 50 states picking, then what is the purpose of the electors and the electoral college vote?? Each State would just get one vote....

but that is NOT how it works and NOT how the founders created it.

Maybe that's the way it should work. After all, if the left can complain about changing the EC, why not us complain about a single state vote count?

Look at it this way, Ray, 50 states, 50 votes. At last, finally, the Left would get the popular vote they so much want.

When they lose, they are always trying to rig the elections in their favor. Maybe they should think about what it would be like if we did the same.

The left are just sore losers. Always were and always will be. Instead of focusing on changing their policies to meet the satisfaction of the public, keep the lousy policies and change the way we vote instead.

What you are really describing is the mental and emotional under-development of a CHILD.

• Children do not handle not getting their way well.

• Children will lie or cheat to come out ahead or turn things to their advantage.

• Children always remember and recount things to their advantage not as they happened, but as they WANTED them to happen.

• Children have fits when they don't get their desires met hoping that it'll somehow change the outcome.

• Children are very slow to learn from their mistakes, usually thinking that if they just keep doing something, eventually they'll get their way.

• Children always see their failures not as a result of their own actions but the result of some unfair higher authority imposed upon them (ie, a victim).

View attachment 310086

Considering you’re the one who is bitching...your post makes me chuckle

 

[Carl in Michigan]

The SCOTUS can't change the electoral college. That requires changing the constitution and that's not the SCOTUS's job.

I am sick of hearing that Hillary won the "popular vote" when that doesn't even count for anything! What counts is the popular vote AT THE STATE LEVEL, after that, it becomes 50 STATE elections. You don't win a country,

YOU WIN STATES.

You'd think democrats and Hillary would KNOW that considering that she was both First Lady, New York Senator and Secretary of STATE.

So I went back and wanted to look at the data a bit different way.

I'm also sick of hearing how pathetic the red states are. So I wanted to know, just what WAS each candidate really up against in 2016 and what did they really win?

In 2016, Hillary won TWENTY states, Trump won THIRTY. To win a state, you have to go up against all voters in a given state; the more people, the more likely voters so, the harder it is to win. And by winning a state, you also win and carry the voice of that state and the people that go in it. So what exactly did the 2016 candidates win?

I looked up the latest tallies of state population, and in the 20 states that Hillary won, her states total population (THE BLUE STATES) was: 2016 BLUE STATE POPULATION = 140,743,676.

And the thirty states that Trump won? 2016 RED STATE POPULATION = 163,435,276.

Yes. Trump's states have 22,691,600 more people in them. A not so small fact I've never seen mentioned before. What is the significance of this?

Trump won 30 states with nearly 23 million more people in them compared to Hillary's 20 states. Not only does that mean you had to carry sway with more people in more states (and by implication, means Trump represented a far greater diversity of the nation!), it means that there are many millions of people who either didn't vote last time or voted against Trump in states he won before who could decide to come out and vote this time or switch their vote to Trump after the recent fiasco of years of Democrats making false claims and accusations all proven wrong and spending tens of millions of dollars of hard earned taxpayer money on silly Russia investigations and a baseless, desperate, petulant, childish impeachment that was nothing more than an abuse of House power resulting in a near Constitutional crisis.

Democrats have stirred up an angry hornets nest, meantime, with the likes of who they have to represent them this time, Democrats may find many of themselves demoralized bowing to the futility.

The 50 US States Ranked By Population

In case anyone wants to check my math.

Trump has 30 states and a potential of up to TWENTY MILLION additional voters this time around, his supporters are pissed, and that is if he doesn't even win any additional states!

Democrats CAN'T feel good about that.

I didn't take the time of counting votes, but anyway Clinton and Gore both won the majority vote.

Liar -- about Gore anyway

 

[bendog]

Yeahbut, they were all within a few counties.

She could have had a BILLION more votes in California but once you win a state, you WON it.

Presidential elections are 50 STATE elections!

If electing a president were simply 50 state elections, the 50 states picking, then what is the purpose of the electors and the electoral college vote?? Each State would just get one vote....

but that is NOT how it works and NOT how the founders created it.

Maybe that's the way it should work. After all, if the left can complain about changing the EC, why not us complain about a single state vote count?

Won't happen, either way. The EC is here to stay.

The compact could end it. And what used to be anomaly in history has now occurred twice in 5 cycles, so imo it needs to go.

But the question should be … can Trump win a simple maj this time? The econ is about as good as it can get, peace is pretty much at hand …. it should be a gop blowout.

What would you think about a rule where the President Elect must get the plurality of the PV as well as 270 EVs?

I don't think we'll ever change it unless the compact makes the EV irrelevant. IF that ever happens, the smaller states will have a motivation to pass state laws to apportion their EVs in proportion to their state's popular vote. That would maintain the EV's making a single vote in a small state actually worth "more" than one in a big state. I mean I really don't have a problem with the EC besides it really makes voting as goper irrelevant in CA or a dem in the deep south. And the Founders didn't intend that. They just didn't want the bigger NE colonies ganging up to run roughshod over the rest. That's just not going to happen now because FLA, CAlif, Texas are so huge, but their self interests aren't really as similar as say NY and PA and Mass in 1787. And Fla and Tex were once dem and Ca was once gop.

 

[Ame®icano]

Ok, she got millions and millions more votes than your blob

Correct, she had millions votes more. And Trump won 10 more states. Got it?

Yeahbut, they were all within a few counties.

She could have had a BILLION more votes in California but once you win a state, you WON it.

Presidential elections are 50 STATE elections!

I personally like and endorse the EC over the popular vote.

That doesn’t change the fact that HRC got more votes than the Cheeto

It also doesn't change that fact that that is a meaningless claim. It's like a losing football team saying "Well, we gained yards than the other team" - suggesting that, if the game had been scored on yardage rather than points, they would have one. But it's an empty claim. If the game had been scored on yardage, the other team would have played differently. They would have focused on gaining yards, rather than scoring points. It's very possible they'd have still won.

Sorry about the sports analogy - but hopefully you get the point.

If it’s meaningless...why are you so bothered by the fact that she got millions more votes than your blob?

Me thinks that your bothered because it somehow—in your mind—delegitimizes the blob’s Presidency. Grow up

You're right, it's meaningless that she got couple of million votes more. We simply don't care, since she's not president, but it obviously means a lot to you that "she won" something.

By the way, she had more votes than Barry in 2008 Dem primaries, and I don't see you complaining how "she won" back then. Hypocrite.

 

[toobfreak]

I am sick of hearing that Hillary won the "popular vote" when that doesn't even count for anything! What counts is the popular vote AT THE STATE LEVEL, after that, it becomes 50 STATE elections. You don't win a country,

YOU WIN STATES.

You'd think democrats and Hillary would KNOW that considering that she was both First Lady, New York Senator and Secretary of STATE.

So I went back and wanted to look at the data a bit different way.

I'm also sick of hearing how pathetic the red states are. So I wanted to know, just what WAS each candidate really up against in 2016 and what did they really win?

In 2016, Hillary won TWENTY states, Trump won THIRTY. To win a state, you have to go up against all voters in a given state; the more people, the more likely voters so, the harder it is to win. And by winning a state, you also win and carry the voice of that state and the people that go in it. So what exactly did the 2016 candidates win?

I looked up the latest tallies of state population, and in the 20 states that Hillary won, her states total population (THE BLUE STATES) was: 2016 BLUE STATE POPULATION = 140,743,676.

And the thirty states that Trump won? 2016 RED STATE POPULATION = 163,435,276.

Yes. Trump's states have 22,691,600 more people in them. A not so small fact I've never seen mentioned before. What is the significance of this?

Trump won 30 states with nearly 23 million more people in them compared to Hillary's 20 states. Not only does that mean you had to carry sway with more people in more states (and by implication, means Trump represented a far greater diversity of the nation!), it means that there are many millions of people who either didn't vote last time or voted against Trump in states he won before who could decide to come out and vote this time or switch their vote to Trump after the recent fiasco of years of Democrats making false claims and accusations all proven wrong and spending tens of millions of dollars of hard earned taxpayer money on silly Russia investigations and a baseless, desperate, petulant, childish impeachment that was nothing more than an abuse of House power resulting in a near Constitutional crisis.

Democrats have stirred up an angry hornets nest, meantime, with the likes of who they have to represent them this time, Democrats may find many of themselves demoralized bowing to the futility.

The 50 US States Ranked By Population

In case anyone wants to check my math.

Trump has 30 states and a potential of up to TWENTY MILLION additional voters this time around, his supporters are pissed, and that is if he doesn't even win any additional states!

Democrats CAN'T feel good about that.

If you really were sick of hearing about it, you wouldn't start a thread on it. LOL

So, in your Bentdick sort of universe, when you are told lies over and over again, you just keep quiet about them never speaking out?

Apparently you equate sick of hearing LIES about a topic as the same as the topic itself.

Apparently you haven't even the smattering of brains to tell the difference between HEARING about something and TALKING about something.

fuck you, **** edit bitchcunt

You cant even start a thread without making a joke of yourself. LOL

So now you think it is a JOKE to start a thread dispelling lies about and elucidating facts on any topic that is repeatedly lied about, sperm-dropping?

You still got your dog dick that bent out of shape because your fav bitch Hillary couldn't beat a loud-mouthed, ignorant, totally inexperienced real-estate developer?

You wanna CRY?



Go ahead, baby, let it all out.

 

[Ame®icano]

If it’s meaningless...why are you so bothered by the fact that she got millions more votes than your blob?
Me thinks that your bothered because it somehow—in your mind—delegitimizes the blob’s Presidency. Grow up

No one who voted fro Trump is bothered by the fact Hillary lost the election.

She think we're triggered that Hillary had "more votes", but it's just opposite. We love that electoral college worked just as it suppose to and we're happy that we can rub it to lefties how beside of Hillary "winning" she's still not the president.