Seduction Spa

Hillary lost the popular vote.

O

OnTheWayOut

And up is down. What is this nonsense you're peddling? If you get the most votes, you have 'won' the popular vote.
I think the major flaw in your argument is using the word "won". Hillary won nothing except early retirement. The way to win the Presidency is to get the most electoral votes, she did not do that so she won nothing. You can say more people voted for her, but she didn't win anything. Winning and Hillary seem to be dissimilar items.
 

Smallcock

Active member
Jun 5, 2009
13,682
21
38
I think the major flaw in your argument is using the word "won". Hillary won nothing except early retirement. The way to win the Presidency is to get the most electoral votes, she did not do that so she won nothing. You can say more people voted for her, but she didn't win anything. Winning and Hillary seem to be dissimilar items.
Exactly. oldjones is talking about a fictional competition. How can you "win" the popular vote when nobody was competing for the popular vote???

She got a fraction of 1% more votes but didn't win anything at all.

Why are fuji and oldjones in denial about Clinton's brutal loss?
 

Smallcock

Active member
Jun 5, 2009
13,682
21
38
Then, where are the votes to prove it? The count says ordinary voters rejected him, no matter how low their opinion of Clinton.

Some also say he's a despicable pervert, serial liar, incompetent at in business and bankrupt, but that doesn't make it true. Stick to facts.

In spite of all the above, indeed he did win the coupla hundred votes that alone decide the Presidency in the US, and those poor schmucks hafta vote for him no matter what they personally think or feel. Or they get sued.

Now isn't that a democratic example for the world!

Still waiting for your definition of 'popular' — which seems to grow stranger with every illustration you offer — and reasons why it has the slightest connection to votes and elections.
60 million ordinary voters rejected him or voted for him?

That number speaks for itself.
 

Smallcock

Active member
Jun 5, 2009
13,682
21
38
Yet she still got the most votes. If she is unpopular then what does that say about Trump?
As we know, the GOP is a party in decline due to demographics. The fact that Trump got MORE votes than any other Republican candidate in history speaks volumes. He was cast as Hitler!
Clinton is right where she belongs, unpopular as ever, and soon-to-be forgotten.
 

Smallcock

Active member
Jun 5, 2009
13,682
21
38
And still Hillary got more votes.
Practically nobody knew who Obama was before he began running President but his likability and media exposure turned him into an instant worldwide celebrity. If you have the media behind you, hundreds of millions of dollars showered on you for your campaign, and a bit of talent, you can could get more votes than Clinton did. LOL
 

basketcase

Well-known member
Dec 29, 2005
62,644
7,076
113
As we know, the GOP is a party that's been atrophying for decades due to demographics. The fact that he got MORE votes than any other Republican candidate in history speaks volumes. This despite being cast as Hitler.

Clinton is right where she belongs, unpopular as ever, and soon-to-be forgotten.
Practically nobody knew who Obama was before he began running President but his likability and media exposure turned him into a worldwide celebrity. If you have the media behind, and a bit of talent, you can could get more votes than Clinton did. LOL
I love these posts. You start cheering because Trump got more popular votes than Bush but suddenly don't care about popular vote when he is outdone by Obama and even Hillary.
 

Frankfooter

dangling member
Apr 10, 2015
96,151
24,661
113
As we know, the GOP is a party in decline due to demographics. The fact that Trump got MORE votes than any other Republican candidate in history speaks volumes. He was cast as Hitler!
Clinton is right where she belongs, unpopular as ever, and soon-to-be forgotten.
It is surprising that the least popular candidate ever beat the second least popular candidate.
Both had record low approval rates.
 

Smallcock

Active member
Jun 5, 2009
13,682
21
38
I love these posts. You start cheering because Trump got more popular votes than Bush but suddenly don't care about popular vote when he is outdone by Obama and even Hillary.
Bush, Obama, and Trump were competing for the same thing - the electoral college. The actual total number of votes is just a byproduct but not the focus of the campaigns. That Trump got a record share of votes is astonishing and interesting trivia. Did Clinton break any records? lol

I don't know what Hillary was competing for. The popular vote maybe?
 

basketcase

Well-known member
Dec 29, 2005
62,644
7,076
113
Bush, Obama, and Trump were competing for the same thing - the electoral college. ...
And yet you were still bragging about total votes. When your candidate got less than the opposition you should either stick to bragging about electoral votes or continue to make yourself look bad.
 

oldjones

CanBarelyRe Member
Aug 18, 2001
24,485
12
38
I think the major flaw in your argument is using the word "won". Hillary won nothing except early retirement. The way to win the Presidency is to get the most electoral votes, she did not do that so she won nothing. You can say more people voted for her, but she didn't win anything. Winning and Hillary seem to be dissimilar items.
You need to tell smallcock. "Hillary won the 'popular' vote" was his phrase, and I added the quote marks in my reply, to point out it was a dubious usage. You might also tell the OP that as no one 'win's the popular vote, likewise no one can lose it.

Whatever words you prefer: President-Elect Trump got fewer votes than his opponent, and she got more than anyone else. Do please stop trying to pick a fight over how one wins the the Presidency. It was never an issue, and that vote will be taken in December.

This election out of the way, if you want to talk about how a democracy is supposed to work …
 

fuji

Banned
Jan 31, 2005
79,966
8
0
¯\_(ツ)_/¯
is.gd
She should have been able to win handily with or without Comey's investigation, if she had bothered to campaign properly.
By the same token Trump ought to have been able to win without Comey's intervention, but couldn't, he was losing without Comey's help. So that cuts both ways.
 

italianguy74

New member
Apr 3, 2011
1,799
1
0
GTA
Still counting those 3 million votes from mexico I see. She didn't win the popular vote amongst the legit American citizens. You guys are seriously kidding yourselves if you truly believe the illegals weren't voting their asses off in this election. The real numbers will come out after the big inauguration protest.
 

fuji

Banned
Jan 31, 2005
79,966
8
0
¯\_(ツ)_/¯
is.gd
The fact that Trump got MORE votes than any other Republican candidate in history speaks volumes.
Another smallcock "fact": you alt right types never bother checking your "facts" most of which are made up.

Trump got fewer votes than even GW in 2004 and far fewer than Obama got in either election.
 
S

**Sophie**

Another smallcock "fact": you alt right types never bother checking your "facts" most of which are made up.

Trump got fewer votes than even GW in 2004 and far fewer than Obama got in either election.
You must have missed this post from Kathleen in the media thread or do you purposely set yourself up to be constantly corrected?
Donald Trump has broken another record

Decision Desk HQ is reporting that Donald Trump has officially crossed the national popular vote record for Republicans set by George W Bush in 2004. After updating new results from counties in Pennsylvania, Trump is currently at 62,041,367 popular votes. Bush received a total of 62,040,610 in 2004.

Trump - 62,041,367
Bush - 62,040,610


With well over 2 million votes still left to count, Trump's popular vote could still go even higher.
P.S Obama is a Democrat
 

oldjones

CanBarelyRe Member
Aug 18, 2001
24,485
12
38
Bush, Obama, and Trump were competing for the same thing - the electoral college. The actual total number of votes is just a byproduct but not the focus of the campaigns. That Trump got a record share of votes is astonishing and interesting trivia. Did Clinton break any records? lol

I don't know what Hillary was competing for. The popular vote maybe?
More nonsense. The popular vote actually determines which Electors are chosen. That makes their subsequent vote — after the rigging process of Winner Take All is applied — the byproduct of the general election. So every campaign is focussed on maximizing the vote, and every campaign tries to spread that vote across enough states with enough Electoral votes to win. Trump succeeded and won. Changes nothing. More people wanted her to be President than him.

Are you ever going to stop re-fighting the election, and actually deal with the reality that fewer people wanted Trump as President than the person who lost? That is what America and the rest of us have to deal with for the next four years. An undemocratically elected leader for the free world.
------------------
The Irrelevant Record Nonsense: Beating Bush II's popular vote by 757 may be a big deal to Republicans, but it's hardly a record, barely a score (anyone who cares can see the numbers in the **Sophie** post 158 above, and do the easy arithmetic). But wait! aren't you the guy claiming popular votes are meaningless? I think that was your word. So either this 'record' is meaningless, or Hillary's vote is at least as important as invented plurality of Donny's. And I'm dying to hear just how you compare her million plus with his 757?

You might also remember that between BushII and Trump, the USA added ten of fifteen million new voters to the population, roughly half of them probably Republicans. So out of five to seven million new Republican voters since BushII, Donny picked up just 757?

Oh yeah, you asked if Hillary broke any records: Clearly she beat Trump's 'record' margin over Bush by more than a million. And that means she also beat Gore's total (In case you forgot, he also beat Bush. By a lot more than 757.)

Some record.
-----------------
Election's over, it's not your fault your guy won it by a rigged system; time to get back to improving the world and give up re-fighting dead issues so poorly.
 

asterwald

Active member
Dec 11, 2010
2,579
0
36
Which they do before they count and announce the totals. Unlike statistical polls, in an election every single vote is actually seen, evaluated for validity, and counted individually. It is what it is, not some airy-fairy projection that some 'expert' hopes would be "…accurate ±2% 19 times out of 20", in a real vote.

This was the real vote, in the real election. Trump got fewer votes than the loser. In a year where most folks disliked both major candidates Trump was the clear choice for Most Unpopular, but was still awarded (Ok, not quite yet) the Presidency.

If that's what Americans want for themselves, they can go back to sleep until 2020, or 2024, but they might just wake up to discover someone quietly made the College even worse. Much better to straighten it out now. Thanks be the President-Elect is so committed to eliminating election rigging.
You are ignoring the fact the media was coordinating with the Clinton campaign. Take out the media bashing Trump 24/7 and you will see the real picture in an media neutral race. The media wouldnt even cover the Wikileaks lol. They went bananas over the Trump tape and the Tax returns.
 

Frankfooter

dangling member
Apr 10, 2015
96,151
24,661
113
Still counting those 3 million votes from mexico I see. She didn't win the popular vote amongst the legit American citizens. You guys are seriously kidding yourselves if you truly believe the illegals weren't voting their asses off in this election. The real numbers will come out after the big inauguration protest.
What, you don't think Mexican American's should have the vote?
Very alt-right of you.
 

fuji

Banned
Jan 31, 2005
79,966
8
0
¯\_(ツ)_/¯
is.gd
You are ignoring the fact the media was coordinating with the Clinton campaign. Take out the media bashing Trump 24/7 and you will see the real picture in an media neutral race. The media wouldnt even cover the Wikileaks lol. They went bananas over the Trump tape and the Tax returns.
Your idea of "neutral" is a racist site like Breitbart. You think the media wasn't neutral because they reported honestly on Trump.

Wikileaks got lots of coverage. So did the FBI's intervention into the election--it dominated the news.

You just don't like that they also covered the truth about Trump as well.
 
Toronto Escorts