It is indeed more of that fake news bullshit they seem to wallow in. I had the same impression, immediately so I finally looked it up.
OP's map first of all goes to great lengths to show vast swaths of red. Anyone who knows how the country is laid out knows most of that red is over sparsely populated space, deserts, swamps and such, yet the uninhabited desert gets the same amount of red pixel as downtown Manhattan or Los Angeles gets a blue one.
Translated into a cartogram that more accurately reflects population however, we get more like this:
---notice the purple shades, because the cartogram is designed to reflect everybody's vote and doesn't try to fly the fantasy that entire states vote unanimously. That color scheme translated back to the normal map gives this:
--- so what he's got up there is entirely a fantasy of the Elecoral College and its perverted "winner take all" system. That map (in the OP) doesn't reflect how the country voted at all, but perhaps it's cartography they do as Republicans to make themselves feel better.
Point Two:
3181 minus 3084 leaves just 57 for Clinton wins. The Dimbart article that promoted this fake news claimed:
>> Hillary Clinton, in contrast, had an 8.2 million vote margin in a narrow band of 52 coastal counties and five “county equivalent” cities stretching from San Diego to Seattle on the West Coast and Northern Virginia to Boston on the East Coast. That narrow band included two major cities–Washington, D.C and Baltimore, Maryland–included in the five “county equivalent” cities, and three major cities–Philadelphia, New York, and Boston–which are included in the 52 counties. <<
Which leaves five more counties elsewhere.
But:
>> Not mentioned in this list was the state of Alabama, where Clinton won 12 of the 67 counties, already bringing Clinton's total to 64 counties total. Arizona (where Clinton won four of 15 counties) was also omitted from the list. Clinton won eight counties in Arkansas, and 23 in the state of Colorado (which she won). She also took Delaware, despite winning one of three counties, and lost Florida with the exception of nine counties. And while Clinton lost Georgia, she did win over 30 of its 159 counties. Skipping to Texas, Clinton went home with 27 of its 254 counties.<< --- Snopes
And that's 166 counties in just those states mentioned, where there was only room for five according to the original claim. Which adding to the 52 already claimed in the Dimbart article, gives 218 in just a limited sample of states. I'm not sure an entire county list exists but this one is clearly an unmitigated crock.
WHY they need to go on lying like this is a fascinating psychological question.
It's a liberal thing....the love their fake news....like Trump has no path to 270.....Why post something that isn't truthful? Is this the new "cool thing" for people to engage in?
Hehe, I would love some watermellon. Nice design there too.
These left loons are coming unglued. 
It is indeed more of that fake news bullshit they seem to wallow in. I had the same impression, immediately so I finally looked it up.
OP's map first of all goes to great lengths to show vast swaths of red. Anyone who knows how the country is laid out knows most of that red is over sparsely populated space, deserts, swamps and such, yet the uninhabited desert gets the same amount of red pixel as downtown Manhattan or Los Angeles gets a blue one.
Translated into a cartogram that more accurately reflects population however, we get more like this:
---notice the purple shades, because the cartogram is designed to reflect everybody's vote and doesn't try to fly the fantasy that entire states vote unanimously. That color scheme translated back to the normal map gives this:
--- so what he's got up there is entirely a fantasy of the Elecoral College and its perverted "winner take all" system. That map (in the OP) doesn't reflect how the country voted at all, but perhaps it's cartography they do as Republicans to make themselves feel better.
Point Two:
3181 minus 3084 leaves just 57 for Clinton wins. The Dimbart article that promoted this fake news claimed:
>> Hillary Clinton, in contrast, had an 8.2 million vote margin in a narrow band of 52 coastal counties and five “county equivalent” cities stretching from San Diego to Seattle on the West Coast and Northern Virginia to Boston on the East Coast. That narrow band included two major cities–Washington, D.C and Baltimore, Maryland–included in the five “county equivalent” cities, and three major cities–Philadelphia, New York, and Boston–which are included in the 52 counties. <<
Which leaves five more counties elsewhere.
But:
>> Not mentioned in this list was the state of Alabama, where Clinton won 12 of the 67 counties, already bringing Clinton's total to 64 counties total. Arizona (where Clinton won four of 15 counties) was also omitted from the list. Clinton won eight counties in Arkansas, and 23 in the state of Colorado (which she won). She also took Delaware, despite winning one of three counties, and lost Florida with the exception of nine counties. And while Clinton lost Georgia, she did win over 30 of its 159 counties. Skipping to Texas, Clinton went home with 27 of its 254 counties.<< --- Snopes
And that's 166 counties in just those states mentioned, where there was only room for five according to the original claim. Which adding to the 52 already claimed in the Dimbart article, gives 218 in just a limited sample of states. I'm not sure an entire county list exists but this one is clearly an unmitigated crock.
WHY they need to go on lying like this is a fascinating psychological question.
It is indeed more of that fake news bullshit they seem to wallow in. I had the same impression, immediately so I finally looked it up.
OP's map first of all goes to great lengths to show vast swaths of red. Anyone who knows how the country is laid out knows most of that red is over sparsely populated space, deserts, swamps and such, yet the uninhabited desert gets the same amount of red pixel as downtown Manhattan or Los Angeles gets a blue one.
Translated into a cartogram that more accurately reflects population however, we get more like this:
---notice the purple shades, because the cartogram is designed to reflect everybody's vote and doesn't try to fly the fantasy that entire states vote unanimously. That color scheme translated back to the normal map gives this:
--- so what he's got up there is entirely a fantasy of the Elecoral College and its perverted "winner take all" system. That map (in the OP) doesn't reflect how the country voted at all, but perhaps it's cartography they do as Republicans to make themselves feel better.
Point Two:
3181 minus 3084 leaves just 57 for Clinton wins. The Dimbart article that promoted this fake news claimed:
>> Hillary Clinton, in contrast, had an 8.2 million vote margin in a narrow band of 52 coastal counties and five “county equivalent” cities stretching from San Diego to Seattle on the West Coast and Northern Virginia to Boston on the East Coast. That narrow band included two major cities–Washington, D.C and Baltimore, Maryland–included in the five “county equivalent” cities, and three major cities–Philadelphia, New York, and Boston–which are included in the 52 counties. <<
Which leaves five more counties elsewhere.
But:
>> Not mentioned in this list was the state of Alabama, where Clinton won 12 of the 67 counties, already bringing Clinton's total to 64 counties total. Arizona (where Clinton won four of 15 counties) was also omitted from the list. Clinton won eight counties in Arkansas, and 23 in the state of Colorado (which she won). She also took Delaware, despite winning one of three counties, and lost Florida with the exception of nine counties. And while Clinton lost Georgia, she did win over 30 of its 159 counties. Skipping to Texas, Clinton went home with 27 of its 254 counties.<< --- Snopes
And that's 166 counties in just those states mentioned, where there was only room for five according to the original claim. Which adding to the 52 already claimed in the Dimbart article, gives 218 in just a limited sample of states. I'm not sure an entire county list exists but this one is clearly an unmitigated crock.
WHY they need to go on lying like this is a fascinating psychological question.
And from Lewdog's link in post 10:
>> The difference in population size among counties can be dramatic — for example, Census data show that Kings County, New York, which is in Brooklyn (and which Clinton won), has a population of 2.6 million people, while Petroleum County, Montana (which Trump won) has 475 people. So, even though Trump won more counties, Clinton is leading in the national popular vote by nearly 2.7 million votes, according to the latest tally from David Wasserman of the nonpartisan Cook Political Report as of Dec. 9. <<Short version: one won counties; the other won voters.
It is indeed more of that fake news bullshit they seem to wallow in. I had the same impression, immediately so I finally looked it up.
OP's map first of all goes to great lengths to show vast swaths of red. Anyone who knows how the country is laid out knows most of that red is over sparsely populated space, deserts, swamps and such, yet the uninhabited desert gets the same amount of red pixel as downtown Manhattan or Los Angeles gets a blue one.
Translated into a cartogram that more accurately reflects population however, we get more like this:
---notice the purple shades, because the cartogram is designed to reflect everybody's vote and doesn't try to fly the fantasy that entire states vote unanimously. That color scheme translated back to the normal map gives this:
--- so what he's got up there is entirely a fantasy of the Elecoral College and its perverted "winner take all" system. That map (in the OP) doesn't reflect how the country voted at all, but perhaps it's cartography they do as Republicans to make themselves feel better.
Point Two:
3181 minus 3084 leaves just 57 for Clinton wins. The Dimbart article that promoted this fake news claimed:
>> Hillary Clinton, in contrast, had an 8.2 million vote margin in a narrow band of 52 coastal counties and five “county equivalent” cities stretching from San Diego to Seattle on the West Coast and Northern Virginia to Boston on the East Coast. That narrow band included two major cities–Washington, D.C and Baltimore, Maryland–included in the five “county equivalent” cities, and three major cities–Philadelphia, New York, and Boston–which are included in the 52 counties. <<
Which leaves five more counties elsewhere.
But:
>> Not mentioned in this list was the state of Alabama, where Clinton won 12 of the 67 counties, already bringing Clinton's total to 64 counties total. Arizona (where Clinton won four of 15 counties) was also omitted from the list. Clinton won eight counties in Arkansas, and 23 in the state of Colorado (which she won). She also took Delaware, despite winning one of three counties, and lost Florida with the exception of nine counties. And while Clinton lost Georgia, she did win over 30 of its 159 counties. Skipping to Texas, Clinton went home with 27 of its 254 counties.<< --- Snopes
And that's 166 counties in just those states mentioned, where there was only room for five according to the original claim. Which adding to the 52 already claimed in the Dimbart article, gives 218 in just a limited sample of states. I'm not sure an entire county list exists but this one is clearly an unmitigated crock.
WHY they need to go on lying like this is a fascinating psychological question.
And from Lewdog's link in post 10:
>> The difference in population size among counties can be dramatic — for example, Census data show that Kings County, New York, which is in Brooklyn (and which Clinton won), has a population of 2.6 million people, while Petroleum County, Montana (which Trump won) has 475 people. So, even though Trump won more counties, Clinton is leading in the national popular vote by nearly 2.7 million votes, according to the latest tally from David Wasserman of the nonpartisan Cook Political Report as of Dec. 9. <<Short version: one won counties; the other won voters.
Which determines the presidency?
Electoral or popular vote?
