Hillary lost the popular vote.

[Butler1000]

Historically the party that doesn't hold the Presidency gains power. The Democrats gained in the House and Senate during the Bush years, then the Republicans gained during Obama's presidency.

For whatever reason Americans tend to vote against the current President's party in down ballot elections.

Historically Trump never would have lasted long in the primaries.

Right now I think it's best to put aside convention when dealing with politics in the USA.

Especially with the disarray of the Dems. I foresee a lot of internal fighting in the coming days. And a lot of deals by Trump with establishment Republicans to get legislation through.

 

[oldjones]

A win is by a margin of 2%, they must factor in the errors, fraudulent, and repeated votes.

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.

 

[Smallcock]

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.

Nobody knows who would have won the popular vote since only one of the candidates was campaigning to win the popular vote, like an idiot, while the other was strategically focused on winning the electoral college.

If I'm running a 100 meter dash against my opponent and I run as fast as I can and beat him, but instead of running fast he's focused on how many people in the audience are cheering for him, I win the race. Neither of us can know whether I could get more people cheering for me than my opponent because I was focused on the race, not on cheerleading fans. The point of the race was to judge the fastest runner. Likewise the presidential race was judged by the electoral college. Conflating two separate goals is stupid.

 

[oldjones]

Nobody knows who would have won the popular vote since only one of the candidates was campaigning to win the popular vote, like an idiot, while the other was strategically focused on winning the electoral college.

If I'm running a 100 meter dash against my opponent and I run as fast as I can and beat him, but instead of running fast he's focused on how many people in the audience are cheering for him, I win the race. Neither of us can know whether I could get more people cheering for me than my opponent because I was focused on the race, not on cheerleading fans. The point of the race was to judge the fastest runner. Likewise the presidential race was judged by the electoral college. Conflating two separate goals is stupid.

What ever are you talking about?

We absolutely do know right down to the single digits who won the popular vote. Every single vote gets verified and counted.

Your footrace fable is sweet, but it has nothing at all to do with democratic elections. If you'd care to connect it somehow with the people choosing the leader they prefer by voting, I'd read that.

But why not just address the real democracy question: How is the vote of the Electoral College, forced into fake unanimity by Winner Take All rules in some states, more democratic than just going by how the people actually voted?

 

[Smallcock]

What ever are you talking about?

We absolutely do know right down to the single digits who won the popular vote. Every single vote gets verified and counted.

Your footrace fable is sweet, but it has nothing at all to do with democratic elections. If you'd care to connect it somehow with the people choosing the leader they prefer by voting, I'd read that.

But why not just address the real democracy question: How is the vote of the Electoral College, forced into fake unanimity by Winner Take All rules in some states, more democratic than just going by how the people actually voted?

Both candidates were not competing for the popular vote. Only one was. Therefore we cannot know who would win the popular vote if both candidates had been competing for the popular vote.

I don't have the patience to get into a discussion on the utility of the Electoral College and whether it should be abandoned. If this is important to you, open a thread about it. This is a thread about Hillary LOSING the election.

 

[oldjones]

Both candidates were not competing for the popular vote. Only one was. Therefore we cannot know who would win the popular vote if both candidates had been competing for the popular vote.

I don't have the patience to get into a discussion on the utility of the Electoral College and whether it should be abandoned. If this is important to you, open a thread about it. This is a thread about Hillary LOSING the election.

None of us know what either of them was competing for, beyond the obvious: The Presidency of the United States.

Indeed, we cannot know anything about any imaginary election (or strategy, as you claim to). But there will be another one in 2020, and only fools would imagine the rules will be the same then as now. It would be comforting to suppose fair-minded citizens would work to ensure those changes improve democracy, not just the fortunes of the parties in power. That was the case when various states adopted Winner-Take-All that dictates how their Electors must vote.

Too bad about your impatience, but the Election is settled; this is a thread about the popular vote, in particular about the OP's false assertion that Clinton lost it.

We can indeed have a pointless thread here in TO about fixing the American's Electoral College for them, but why? On the other hand, discussing how, why and when democracy works and doesn't should be useful in pretty much every free country.

So why not try to address the topic. The Election is over.

 

[Calgacus]

None of us know what either of them was competing for, beyond the obvious: The Presidency of the United States.

Indeed, we cannot know anything about any imaginary election (or strategy, as you claim to). But there will be another one in 2020, and only fools would imagine the rules will be the same then as now. It would be comforting to suppose fair-minded citizens would work to ensure those changes improve democracy, not just the fortunes of the parties in power. That was the case when various states adopted Winner-Take-All that dictates how their Electors must vote.

Too bad about your impatience, but the Election is settled; this is a thread about the popular vote, in particular about the OP's false assertion that Clinton lost it.

We can indeed have a pointless thread here in TO about fixing the American's Electoral College for them, but why? On the other hand, discussing how, why and when democracy works and doesn't should be useful in pretty much every free country.

So why not try to address the topic. The Election is over.

You're tiresome

 

[Smallcock]

None of us know what either of them was competing for, beyond the obvious: The Presidency of the United States.

Indeed, we cannot know anything about any imaginary election (or strategy, as you claim to). But there will be another one in 2020, and only fools would imagine the rules will be the same then as now. It would be comforting to suppose fair-minded citizens would work to ensure those changes improve democracy, not just the fortunes of the parties in power. That was the case when various states adopted Winner-Take-All that dictates how their Electors must vote.

Too bad about your impatience, but the Election is settled; this is a thread about the popular vote, in particular about the OP's false assertion that Clinton lost it.

We can indeed have a pointless thread here in TO about fixing the American's Electoral College for them, but why? On the other hand, discussing how, why and when democracy works and doesn't should be useful in pretty much every free country.

So why not try to address the topic

A greater fool would run a campaign the way Hillary did. You're right that I'm only postulating about what she was competing for since it's hard to imagine a worse way to compete for the President of the USA.

American democracy works astonishingly well. It has done so for over 200 years and 2016 is no exception. Emulating American democracy would do plenty of countries a lot of good.

Strictly speaking, saying that Hillary won the 'popular' vote is a misnomer. She registered the most votes but she's not the more popular candidate across the USA. Fortunately the Electoral College accounted for that.

Your arguments here are trivial and banal. Congrats to the WINNER - TRUMP!

 

[fuji]

A greater fool would run a campaign the way Hillary did. You're right that I'm only postulating about what she was competing for since it's hard to imagine a worse way to compete for the President of the USA.

American democracy works astonishingly well. It has done so for over 200 years and 2016 is no exception. Emulating American democracy would do plenty of countries a lot of good.

Strictly speaking, saying that Hillary won the 'popular' vote is a misnomer. She registered the most votes but she's not the more popular candidate across the USA. Fortunately the Electoral College accounted for that.

Your arguments here are trivial and banal. Congrats to the WINNER - TRUMP!

Clinton was winning the campaign until Comey intervened. Seems like without FBI interference in the election it was a perfectly good strategy.

 

[oldjones]

…
Strictly speaking, saying that Hillary won the 'popular' vote is a misnomer. She registered the most votes but she's not the more popular candidate across the USA. Fortunately the Electoral College accounted for that.…

And up is down. What is this nonsense you're peddling? If you get the most votes, you have 'won' the popular vote.

If you want to bring in some new topic, like how 'popular' you imagine she is or isn't go ahead, but please don't mush it in with the real stuff: That'd be the actual votes that real people took the trouble to get out and to cast. And that other people worked long hours to verify and count. They deserve more respect for their commitment to the difficult work of democracy.

 

[Smallcock]

Clinton was winning the campaign until Comey intervened. Seems like without FBI interference in the election it was a perfectly good strategy.

She should have been able to win handily with or without Comey's investigation, if she had bothered to campaign properly.

The entire 2016 election season shouted "DON'T TAKE ANYTHING FOR GRANTED. THIS TRUMP GUY IS SURGING NO MATTER WHAT COMES OUT OF HIS MOUTH!" but she and her underlings didn't listen.

 

[Smallcock]

And up is down. What is this nonsense you're peddling? If you get the most votes, you have 'won' the popular vote.

if you want to bring in some new topic, like how 'popular' you imagine she is or isn't go ahead, but please don't mush it in with real stuff actual votes that people took the trouble to get out and cast and that other people worked long hours to verify and count. they deserve more respect for their commitment to the difficult work of democracy.

One thing is certain. Clinton is extremely unpopular.

The money, media, and political machine could move mountains but could not put her in the White House.

 

[oldjones]

One thing is certain. Clinton is extremely unpopular.

The money, media, and political machine could move mountains but could not put her in the White House.

However something did get her more votes than the other guy. Which might suggest he's even less popular.

Some folks would say that proves by actual numbers that she's more popular than he is. But apparently that logic doesn't apply in your reality.

Where 'popularity' is whatever you say it is.

But here, the threads about The Popular Vote.

 

[Smallcock]

However something did get her more votes than the other guy. Which might suggest he's even less popular.

Some folks would say that proves by actual numbers that she's more popular than he is. But apparently that logic doesn't apply in your reality.

Where 'popularity' is whatever you say it is.

But here, the threads about The Popular Vote.

Considering that he won without the blessings of the media, his party, two Presidents, and Super Pacs, (all of which influence voters), some would say it proves that he's more popular.

 

[Smallcock]

oldjones, got some more trivia for you regarding the popularity of the winner:

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.

LOL

Kudos to Kathleen for posting this new info in another thread.

 

[oldjones]

Considering that he won without the blessings of the media, his party, two Presidents, and Super Pacs, (all of which influence voters), some would say it proves that he's more popular.

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.

 

[oldjones]

oldjones, got some more trivia for you regarding the popularity of the winner:

LOL

Kudos to Kathleen for posting this new info in another thread.

That makes him 757 votes more popular than one of the least-admired Presidents in living memory. And that's the best he could do, even with the increase in overall population pumping him up. I can understand why you laugh.
-----------------
PS: Both of those guys lost the popular vote, although Bush did better against a better-liked opponent than the one Trump had.

 

[**Sophie**]

To add to the factual statements

Republicans now control:
- Presidency
- Senate
- House
- Majority of State Houses
- Majority of Governor-ships
- And will pick Supreme Court.

 

[oldjones]

To add to the factual statements

Republicans now control:
- Presidency
- Senate
- House
- Majority of State Houses
- Majority of Governor-ships
- And will pick Supreme Court.

Interesting, but apart from the first on your list, not germane to the national vote for President. Indeed, as has been so often pointed out, the Election to that office is over, and how the Electors will decide it is a foregone conclusion, as they (almost always) follow orders and vote as they're ordered to.

It's curious no one has started a thread where your list* would more properly sit, but this one is most definitely about Clinton's popular vote.
------------------
*You might start one about gerrymandering which, like the WTA Rule in the Electoral College, is a way the Party temporarily in power manipulates/rigs the rules to ensure its need many more votes than they do to win an electoral contest. Senate and Presidential elections can't be gerrymandered, but the House and all those state legislatures always have been.

Just like the Electoral College rule, they all do it, so not changing it keeps them all corruptly and happily busy screwing the actual voters. But thanks be! here's a President coming to Washington who's gonna do away with election rigging!

Isn't he?

 

[basketcase]

One thing is certain. Clinton is extremely unpopular.....

Yet she still got the most votes. If she is unpopular then what does that say about Trump?