Why Trump Won

[elongobardi]

The only bad logic is Demtards logic.

You sound like a child. And not a smart one.

Wow. I should expect that from morons like you. We will see who the child is soon. Keep saying the name President Trump because he will be there till 2024. Get use to it.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Irrelevant tantrum.

You and the Democrats are the only thing that’s irrelevant.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

They just haven’t imported enough illegals yet.

Oops, youre confused again. Generally, it is Republicans who grant widespread amnesty to get latino votes. Read your history.

 

[elongobardi]

They just haven’t imported enough illegals yet.

Oops, youre confused again. Generally, it is Republicans who grant widespread amnesty to get latino votes. Read your history.

That changed way before you were born and most of it is untrue as the rest of the nonsense you spew.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[DOTR]

They just haven’t imported enough illegals yet.

Oops, youre confused again. Generally, it is Republicans who grant widespread amnesty to get latino votes. Read your history.

That changed way before you were born and most of it is untrue as the rest of the nonsense you spew.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

?

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

That changed way before you were born

Hmm, no, the last 3 republican presidents did it or attempted it. The first two were successful, and the last time it was tried was in 2007, when it fell in the Senate by a close margin.

 

[XponentialChaos]

SO THE QUESTION BECOMES: Facts do not lie. How does Trump win THIRTY states, win the popular vote in each, and nearly all of his states were more populated than the concomitant state won by Hillary in the first place, yet STILL COME OUT LOSING THE NATIONAL POPULAR COUNT by 2.8 million?

Heads up: THAT IS MATHEMATICALLY IMPOSSIBLE.

Only if you don't understand math.

I taught it (tutoring) up to calculus. What about you? Still waiting for one person to prove me wrong rather than the typically puerile insults and hollow claims. You can't.

I don't think I've ever been asked to prove that a factual historical event is not mathematically impossible, lol. But alright.

Just to be clear, here is the statement of yours that I am referencing:

"How does Trump win THIRTY states, win the popular vote in each, and nearly all of his states were more populated than the concomitant state won by Hillary in the first place, yet STILL COME OUT LOSING THE NATIONAL POPULAR COUNT by 2.8 million?

Heads up: THAT IS MATHEMATICALLY IMPOSSIBLE."

You put some emphasis on the top 10 states in population, so I'll focus on those.

California
Texas
Florida
New York
Pennsylvania
Illinois
Ohio
Georgia
North Carolina
Michigan

Trump won 7 out of the 10 states. Yet it's still mathematically possible for him to lose the popular vote in those 10 states. How do I know it's mathematically possible? Because it fucking happened. In the biggest 10 states, the states that Trump won 7 of, Trump had 5 million fewer votes.

Maybe it will help you if you look at the percentage differences? For example, Trump lost California by 30 points. (Hillary got 61.73% of the votes in California compared to Trump's 31.62%)


California 30
Texas 9
Florida 1
New York 23
Pennsylvania 1
Illinois 17
Ohio 8
Georgia 5
North Carolina 3
Michigan 1

Trump's margin of victory was relatively small compared to Clinton's - that's why Trump won more states but lost the popular vote.

Put it this way: Suppose Hillary won unanimous 100% support in each of her 20 states and Trump won by 1 vote in each of his 30 states. Trump would still win the electoral college yet Hillary would have destroyed Trump in the popular vote. That's kind of like what happened, just not nearly to that extent.

Like I said, it's not mathematically impossible. It kind of actually happened...

 

[Indeependent]

SO THE QUESTION BECOMES: Facts do not lie. How does Trump win THIRTY states, win the popular vote in each, and nearly all of his states were more populated than the concomitant state won by Hillary in the first place, yet STILL COME OUT LOSING THE NATIONAL POPULAR COUNT by 2.8 million?

Heads up: THAT IS MATHEMATICALLY IMPOSSIBLE.

Only if you don't understand math.

I taught it (tutoring) up to calculus. What about you? Still waiting for one person to prove me wrong rather than the typically puerile insults and hollow claims. You can't.

My degree is in math and I have a master's degree in statistics.

Do you really want me to prove you wrong? It's literally just addition. Trump can win more of the most populated states and still end up losing the overall popular vote, and that's exactly what happened.

It's not a mathematical impossibility at all.

Add up the numbers here: 2016 United States presidential election - Wikipedia

Statistics...the art of massaging facts into artifacts.

 

[edward37]

THE DIRTY SECRET THE LEFT HAS TRIED TO KEEP HIDDEN FROM THE PUBLIC FOR 3 YEARS

I sat down and did something I don't think anyone else has done: Over and over here, I hear Tards tell me that it does not matter that Trump won 99% of the counties in the USA (3,084 vs. Hillary's 57) because NO ONE LIVES IN HIS DEPLORABLE STATES! So I set out to examine if that were actually true.

THE FIRST thing I did was tabulate the thirty states Trump won, IN ORDER OF THEIR POPULATION. Tards always tell me it is POPULATION that matters, not area, not counties. So I listed the states that Trump and Hillary won IN THE ORDER OF THEIR POPULATION from largest to smallest.

The next thing I did was record their populations, rounded to the nearest million or hundred-thousand.

The third thing I did was count up the weighting of each state. In other words, I gave a mathematical weight to a state based on the number of people it had and its absolute size in relation to all the states. This reflects not only the raw population total they carried, but also by how far up the list they were for each candidate. To keep it straightforward, since there are 50 states, the weight of a state equals 50 - (whatever their state ranking was).

(eg: Texas is the 2nd most populous state so its weighting is 50 - 2 = 48. Wyoming is the least populous state so their weighting is 50 - 50 = 0.) What this does is give more weight to winning a populous state than a non-populous state. If Hillary truly was more popular in more populous states, it should certainly show here. All info was gotten here:

List of U.S. states by population - Simple English Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

THE RESULTS WERE VERY INTERESTING:

View attachment 284800

The first very interesting thing I noticed is that "Deplorable Trump" won SEVEN OF THE TEN most populous states! Hillary only won three. Hmm.

THE GREAT LIE it dispelled is that no one lives in the "Deplorable" states that voted for Trump. Comparing the 1st largest state that voted for Trump, Texas, with that voting for Hillary, California, THIS WAS THE ONLY PLACE WHERE HILLARY'S STATE WAS BIGGER THAN TRUMP'S (see red). In other words, the biggest state Hillary won, California, was bigger than the biggest state Trump won, Texas. These were the two biggest states. BUT THIS IS THE ONLY CASE WHERE SHE BEAT HIM (see red).

After that, EVERY OTHER STATE THAT VOTED FOR TRUMP down the line by order of size was bigger than the equivalent state voting for Hillary. In fact, the only other state where Hillary even got close to matching Trump's was their 3rd largest states, Pennsylvania for Trump and Illinois for Hillary. But she still lost.

Trump's top 10 biggest states electing him by POPULATION totaled 126,600,000 vs, 121,600,000 for Hillary's ten most populous states. Trump's states had 5 million more people. Likewise, their weighting was 409 for Trump and only 376 for Hillary. While Trump's tenth state was 17th biggest by population, Hillary's tenth state was already 22nd! No winning there!

Mind you, THIS IS SIGNIFICANT because these were the TEN MOST POPULOUS STATES each candidate won!

THE ONLY STATE HILLARY WON WITH A GREATER POPULATION / POSITION THAN TRUMP'S WAS CALIFORNIA! (see red). In every other case, every next state by population Trump won had MORE people in it than the concomitant state won by Hillary!

Mind you, Trump was a real estate developer with NO EXPERIENCE in politics with rather limited support and funding and he literally BEAT THE PANTS OFF a career lifetime Washington DC inside the Beltway politician who had been FIRST LADY, SENATOR AND SECRETARY OF STATE! And had run before!!! And had 99% of the MSM backing her and enormous financials. This totally dispels the Russian myth and explains why they created it in the first place! THIS IS HUMILIATING for the DNC! And I'm sure they know this and have kept it under lock and key.

Trump CRUSHED her not only by

1. Number of States won
2. Number of Counties won
3. Amount of US area won,
4. Number of Electoral College votes won, but by
5. The total populations overcome in all those states! Trump won TEN MORE STATES despite having to go against nearly 50 million more people in those states and win their votes!

If there were ANY ties to Russians, UFOs, magnetic waves from the Bermuda Triangle or any other heinous outside scurrilous forces truly, legitimately factored here, they would have proven that backwards and forwards long ago. No, the proof is seen EVERY DAY just in watching the SHEER NUMBERS of supporters at all his rallies.

IT GETS WORSE.

Looking at the second group of ten states (states 11-20 by population) won by each, Hillary's states only had a total of 19,800,000 (with a weighting of only 115) vs. Trump's 45,500,000 and a weighting of 244! I thought no one lived in these Deplorable states! What this shows is that while Hillary won a couple of very populous states, Trump took the lion's share of them. Most of Hillary's others were shit. The 2nd blow to the theory that "no one lives" in Trump's "deplorable" states. Whereas Trump's 20th largest state won was the 33rd biggest by population, Hillary's 20th state won was already 49th! In fact, while Trump's last 6 (top 20) states were in the 20-30s, Hillary's last 6 states were ALL IN THE 40s!!! And Trump went on to win yet ANOTHER TEN MORE ADDITIONAL STATES!

Again, I challenge anyone to prove any of this wrong.

The final coup de grâce was the third set of ten states (states 21-30) BY POPULATION. Remember, according to the Left, POPULATION IS EVERYTHING and Trump won only the "empty" deplorable states. But WHOOPS! HILLARY WON NO STATES HERE! Not a one. So Trump took in another 15,900,000 people by state population with a weighting of 87.

So the more valuable a state is to win (and the harder it is to win), the more weight it had. Trump's states won had a weighting of 740 vs. a mere 491 for Hillary.

Anyone can check my math here and prove me wrong.

And Trump won THIRTY STATES with a total population of 188,000,000 vs. Hillary's TWENTY states of only 141,400,000. Now obviously, these ARE NOT representative of ACTUAL VOTES cast but just population. Out of 50 states, Trump won the majority popular vote in LARGER more populous states (30 of them) in EVERY CASE BUT ONE to Hillary's 20 states. But the fact of the matter is that with a greater population, there are MORE PEOPLE TO VOTE AGAINST YOU and more votes you have to win.

Put this way it is now easy to see why Trump won. He won MORE states and MORE people in more populous states. THE EXACT OPPOSITE OF WHAT THE LEFT HAVE CLAIMED ALL ALONG, YOU CAN'T WIN A STATE WITHOUT WINNING THE POPULAR VOTE IN EACH.

SO THE QUESTION BECOMES: Facts do not lie. How does Trump win THIRTY states, win the popular vote in each, and nearly all of his states were more populated than the concomitant state won by Hillary in the first place, yet STILL COME OUT LOSING THE NATIONAL POPULAR COUNT by 2.8 million?

Heads up: THAT IS MATHEMATICALLY IMPOSSIBLE.

Trump CRUSHED the election. All the current polls are telling lies again and why the Left keep pushing them. The ONLY WAY the national "popular vote" they are so damned proud of could come out ahead of Trump's is if there was something VERY VERY crooked going on, like MILLIONS and MILLIONS of fraudulent democratic votes.

AM I RINGING ANY BELLS HERE?

Wow. Thank you for sharing. The figures don’t lie.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

BUT liars figure

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Statistics...the art of massaging facts into artifacts.

Addition....the art of second grade...

 

[GreenAndBlue]

THE DIRTY SECRET THE LEFT HAS TRIED TO KEEP HIDDEN FROM THE PUBLIC FOR 3 YEARS

I sat down and did something I don't think anyone else has done: Over and over here, I hear Tards tell me that it does not matter that Trump won 99% of the counties in the USA (3,084 vs. Hillary's 57) because NO ONE LIVES IN HIS DEPLORABLE STATES! So I set out to examine if that were actually true.

THE FIRST thing I did was tabulate the thirty states Trump won, IN ORDER OF THEIR POPULATION. Tards always tell me it is POPULATION that matters, not area, not counties. So I listed the states that Trump and Hillary won IN THE ORDER OF THEIR POPULATION from largest to smallest.

The next thing I did was record their populations, rounded to the nearest million or hundred-thousand.

The third thing I did was count up the weighting of each state. In other words, I gave a mathematical weight to a state based on the number of people it had and its absolute size in relation to all the states. This reflects not only the raw population total they carried, but also by how far up the list they were for each candidate. To keep it straightforward, since there are 50 states, the weight of a state equals 50 - (whatever their state ranking was).

(eg: Texas is the 2nd most populous state so its weighting is 50 - 2 = 48. Wyoming is the least populous state so their weighting is 50 - 50 = 0.) What this does is give more weight to winning a populous state than a non-populous state. If Hillary truly was more popular in more populous states, it should certainly show here. All info was gotten here:

List of U.S. states by population - Simple English Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

THE RESULTS WERE VERY INTERESTING:

View attachment 284800

The first very interesting thing I noticed is that "Deplorable Trump" won SEVEN OF THE TEN most populous states! Hillary only won three. Hmm.

THE GREAT LIE it dispelled is that no one lives in the "Deplorable" states that voted for Trump. Comparing the 1st largest state that voted for Trump, Texas, with that voting for Hillary, California, THIS WAS THE ONLY PLACE WHERE HILLARY'S STATE WAS BIGGER THAN TRUMP'S (see red). In other words, the biggest state Hillary won, California, was bigger than the biggest state Trump won, Texas. These were the two biggest states. BUT THIS IS THE ONLY CASE WHERE SHE BEAT HIM (see red).

After that, EVERY OTHER STATE THAT VOTED FOR TRUMP down the line by order of size was bigger than the equivalent state voting for Hillary. In fact, the only other state where Hillary even got close to matching Trump's was their 3rd largest states, Pennsylvania for Trump and Illinois for Hillary. But she still lost.

Trump's top 10 biggest states electing him by POPULATION totaled 126,600,000 vs, 121,600,000 for Hillary's ten most populous states. Trump's states had 5 million more people. Likewise, their weighting was 409 for Trump and only 376 for Hillary. While Trump's tenth state was 17th biggest by population, Hillary's tenth state was already 22nd! No winning there!

Mind you, THIS IS SIGNIFICANT because these were the TEN MOST POPULOUS STATES each candidate won!

THE ONLY STATE HILLARY WON WITH A GREATER POPULATION / POSITION THAN TRUMP'S WAS CALIFORNIA! (see red). In every other case, every next state by population Trump won had MORE people in it than the concomitant state won by Hillary!

Mind you, Trump was a real estate developer with NO EXPERIENCE in politics with rather limited support and funding and he literally BEAT THE PANTS OFF a career lifetime Washington DC inside the Beltway politician who had been FIRST LADY, SENATOR AND SECRETARY OF STATE! And had run before!!! And had 99% of the MSM backing her and enormous financials. This totally dispels the Russian myth and explains why they created it in the first place! THIS IS HUMILIATING for the DNC! And I'm sure they know this and have kept it under lock and key.

Trump CRUSHED her not only by

1. Number of States won
2. Number of Counties won
3. Amount of US area won,
4. Number of Electoral College votes won, but by
5. The total populations overcome in all those states! Trump won TEN MORE STATES despite having to go against nearly 50 million more people in those states and win their votes!

If there were ANY ties to Russians, UFOs, magnetic waves from the Bermuda Triangle or any other heinous outside scurrilous forces truly, legitimately factored here, they would have proven that backwards and forwards long ago. No, the proof is seen EVERY DAY just in watching the SHEER NUMBERS of supporters at all his rallies.

IT GETS WORSE.

Looking at the second group of ten states (states 11-20 by population) won by each, Hillary's states only had a total of 19,800,000 (with a weighting of only 115) vs. Trump's 45,500,000 and a weighting of 244! I thought no one lived in these Deplorable states! What this shows is that while Hillary won a couple of very populous states, Trump took the lion's share of them. Most of Hillary's others were shit. The 2nd blow to the theory that "no one lives" in Trump's "deplorable" states. Whereas Trump's 20th largest state won was the 33rd biggest by population, Hillary's 20th state won was already 49th! In fact, while Trump's last 6 (top 20) states were in the 20-30s, Hillary's last 6 states were ALL IN THE 40s!!! And Trump went on to win yet ANOTHER TEN MORE ADDITIONAL STATES!

Again, I challenge anyone to prove any of this wrong.

The final coup de grâce was the third set of ten states (states 21-30) BY POPULATION. Remember, according to the Left, POPULATION IS EVERYTHING and Trump won only the "empty" deplorable states. But WHOOPS! HILLARY WON NO STATES HERE! Not a one. So Trump took in another 15,900,000 people by state population with a weighting of 87.

So the more valuable a state is to win (and the harder it is to win), the more weight it had. Trump's states won had a weighting of 740 vs. a mere 491 for Hillary.

Anyone can check my math here and prove me wrong.

And Trump won THIRTY STATES with a total population of 188,000,000 vs. Hillary's TWENTY states of only 141,400,000, many of which she only won narrowly. Now obviously, these ARE NOT representative of ACTUAL VOTES cast but just population. Out of 50 states, Trump won the majority popular vote in LARGER more populous states (30 of them) in EVERY CASE BUT ONE to Hillary's 20 states. But the fact of the matter is that with a greater population, there are MORE PEOPLE TO VOTE AGAINST YOU and more votes you have to win.

Put this way it is now easy to see why Trump won. He won MORE states and had to win MORE people in those more populous states to win them. THE EXACT OPPOSITE OF WHAT THE LEFT HAVE CLAIMED ALL ALONG, YOU CAN'T WIN A STATE WITHOUT WINNING THE POPULAR VOTE AMONG ACTIVE VOTERS IN EACH.

SO THE QUESTION BECOMES: Facts do not lie. How does Trump win THIRTY states, win the popular vote in each, and nearly all of his states were more populated than the concomitant state won by Hillary in the first place, yet STILL COME OUT LOSING THE NATIONAL POPULAR COUNT by 2.8 million?

Heads up: THAT IS MATHEMATICALLY IMPOSSIBLE.

Trump CRUSHED the election. All the current polls are telling lies again and why the Left keep pushing them. The ONLY WAY the national "popular vote" they are so damned proud of could come out ahead of Trump's is if there was something VERY VERY crooked going on, like MILLIONS and MILLIONS of fraudulent democratic votes.

AM I RINGING ANY BELLS HERE?

And another fact proof that democrats lie their azz off is how they try to make people think liberals are smarter than conservatives because they have more college degrees

The fact is trumps supporters have the highest incomes and much higher net worth because the foolish democrats were brainwashed to get worthless degrees with monster student debt and having to live in higher costs big cities

That proves just the opposite

Democrats are brainwashed morons electing crooks that destroys the nation

But the other fact is men with their higher logic and power is on trumps side and they will not allow this crookedness to destroy the nation

Looks like Barr and Trump both are setting up to declare martial law to stop the crooks and the fall of America

 

[toobfreak]

SO THE QUESTION BECOMES: Facts do not lie. How does Trump win THIRTY states, win the popular vote in each, and nearly all of his states were more populated than the concomitant state won by Hillary in the first place, yet STILL COME OUT LOSING THE NATIONAL POPULAR COUNT by 2.8 million?

Heads up: THAT IS MATHEMATICALLY IMPOSSIBLE.

Only if you don't understand math.

I taught it (tutoring) up to calculus. What about you? Still waiting for one person to prove me wrong rather than the typically puerile insults and hollow claims. You can't.

My degree is in math and I have a master's degree in statistics.

Do you really want me to prove you wrong? It's literally just addition. Trump can win more of the most populated states and still end up losing the overall popular vote, and that's exactly what happened.

It's not a mathematical impossibility at all.

Add up the numbers here: 2016 United States presidential election - Wikipedia

Thanks, I may use a site like that for future research, but since you are this statistical genius, rather than just make empty claims, why don't you put it all together like I did and PROVE ME WRONG? One of the problems is that without Voter ID, there is no way of telling what percentage of votes were illegitimate, and no reasonable person can claim there were NO fraudulent votes. Of course, the other problem is that people like you still keep coming back to the national "popular vote" which means nothing! Aside from the fact that I must take their numbers on faith, beyond the STATE LEVEL where it decides who wins that state, IT COUNTS FOR NOTHING. The USA is not Mob Rule.

 

[toobfreak]

Like I said, it's not mathematically impossible. It kind of actually happened...

For one thing, a sampling of ten states does not a survey make. Second, you ignore the fact that Hillary also barely won some states like Virginia. Third, the popular vote still does not mean a thing, but if nothing else, you are proving my point that Hillary's "popular vote victory" was mainly a function of TWO states, New York and California, and that is EXACTLY the very thing the Founders sought to avoid--- --- --- a president being elected which only represented one special, local group ignoring the rest of the country.

But more important, like all Libs, you are trying to again deflect from the real point of the topic here, that the claim that Trump's states were all empty is a bald faced lie. Other than ONE STATE, California, in every other state ranking each candidate won, Trump's state was more populous than Hillary's.

And the final point of mine you are helping to prove is that it isn't the Right that is brainwashed but the Left. Your very figures show that a preponderance of Hillary's votes came from TWO SMALL AREAS: around NYC and SanFran / LA. Now STATISTICALLY, there is almost a zero random chance that literally MILLIONS of people in a given small area should all vote the same way! UNLESS, there was some external force steering them to do so.

So thanks for proving the point that:

1. Leftards are brainwashed, controlled zombies who get plugged into the central thinknet of huge megalopolises strictly controlled by the Democrats.
2. And that the Founder's system worked, in keeping your mobs of radical socialists from usurping power from the other 99% of the nation.

 

[Redfish]

Hillary got 3 million more votes than your blob.

Consider yourself triggered.

From one state only...
Pretty much

By the same bad logic, trump only won because of 3 counties.

if you want to call it that way, then hillary won the PV by one county, (LA county). Her entire PV delta was in that one county.

 

[sartre play]

Move on, he won. now its time too decide if we want more of the same or a new direction.

 

[SAYIT]

From one state only... Pretty much

Votes are votes. Hillary got more.

And still managed to lose to a political novice. Yeah, that's a special kind of loser. Run her again ... I dare ya.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

if you want to call it that way

Which i don't, because, as I made very clear, I was mocking your poor logic. Pay attention!

And you are wrong anyway. She won LA county by about 1.7 million.

Ya kinda fell on your face, there.

 

[Redfish]

if you want to call it that way

Which i don't, because, as I made very clear, I was mocking your poor logic. Pay attention!

And you are wrong anyway. She won LA county by about 1.7 million.

Ya kinda fell on your face, there.

Ok, I stand corrected, one county accounted for more than half of her PV delta. The OP was correct, I know that is hard for you to accept, but its the simple truth.

 

[Dick Foster]

Hillary got 3 million more votes than your blob.

Consider yourself triggered.

Yet Trump is in the Whitehouse, you dope so who's triggered and showing it every miserable day of their pathetic existence? Don't look now but its YOU!

 

[Redfish]

To the OP

Trump won because he understood the electoral college, ran a smart campaign, and represented the change from usual that most americans wanted

Hillary lost because she ran a stupid campaign and was a very unlikable candidate.

 

[XponentialChaos]

SO THE QUESTION BECOMES: Facts do not lie. How does Trump win THIRTY states, win the popular vote in each, and nearly all of his states were more populated than the concomitant state won by Hillary in the first place, yet STILL COME OUT LOSING THE NATIONAL POPULAR COUNT by 2.8 million?

Heads up: THAT IS MATHEMATICALLY IMPOSSIBLE.

Only if you don't understand math.

I taught it (tutoring) up to calculus. What about you? Still waiting for one person to prove me wrong rather than the typically puerile insults and hollow claims. You can't.

My degree is in math and I have a master's degree in statistics.

Do you really want me to prove you wrong? It's literally just addition. Trump can win more of the most populated states and still end up losing the overall popular vote, and that's exactly what happened.

It's not a mathematical impossibility at all.

Add up the numbers here: 2016 United States presidential election - Wikipedia

Thanks, I may use a site like that for future research, but since you are this statistical genius, rather than just make empty claims, why don't you put it all together like I did and PROVE ME WRONG? One of the problems is that without Voter ID, there is no way of telling what percentage of votes were illegitimate, and no reasonable person can claim there were NO fraudulent votes. Of course, the other problem is that people like you still keep coming back to the national "popular vote" which means nothing! Aside from the fact that I must take their numbers on faith, beyond the STATE LEVEL where it decides who wins that state, IT COUNTS FOR NOTHING. The USA is not Mob Rule.

I did prove you wrong. Once again, here is the statement of yours that I have proven wrong:

"SO THE QUESTION BECOMES: Facts do not lie. How does Trump win THIRTY states, win the popular vote in each, and nearly all of his states were more populated than the concomitant state won by Hillary in the first place, yet STILL COME OUT LOSING THE NATIONAL POPULAR COUNT by 2.8 million? Heads up: THAT IS MATHEMATICALLY IMPOSSIBLE."

This specific statement right here of yours claims a mathematical impossibility. In order to disprove you, I simply need to show that it is mathematically possible. I can show you that it's mathematically possible by providing a mathematically possible counter-example, thus proving that it's not mathematically impossible.

Do you not see how the 2016 election directly disproves your claim? Trump lost the popular vote despite winning the more populated states. That happened. That's reality. Therefore, it is not mathematically impossible as you claimed. Therefore I have proven you wrong.

If you like, I can provide you with another counter-example that is mathematically possible:

I'll use small numbers just to make it easier to follow. Suppose that there are 100 voters in Rhode Island and each of those voters votes Democrat. Suppose that each of the other 49 states has exactly one voter and each of those voters selects the Republican. In this hypothetical scenario, Trump would win the electoral college by winning every single state except for Rhode Island. However, Trump would also lose the popular vote 49 to 100.

So there you have it. It's mathematically possible to lose 49 of the states and obviously lose the electoral college, but win the popular vote. Therefore it is not mathematically impossible as you claimed it to be. Therefore I have proven you wrong.

Quod erat demonstrandum.