Posted on 12/02/2016 7:46:40 AM PST by johnk
... Democrats can't simply run up the score in giant liberal states like California, New York and Illinois and call it a day. Similarly, Republicans can't dominate Texas and the South and pull off a win. The equation is more complex -- with an array of constituencies, featuring varied opinions and dispositions, needing to be wooed. This is by design.
To that end, Donald Trump carried approximately 82 percent of all US counties, with Hillary Clinton's success being mostly limited to large urban, left-leaning populations. Trump won a supermajority of states and an overwhelming majority of counties, from coast to coast....
Progressives need to flock to California to ensure that future DNC candidates are able to repeat this claim, time and time again.
Good points, but never ever forget the voter fraud used by the RATs.
She did not “win” anything.
#1 - There is no certified popular vote.
#2 - She will get about 48% of the uncertified popular vote, which means 52% will have voted against her.
No majority of anything: Votes, States, Electoral votes, Counties, Congressional Districts.... any way anyone wants to look at it.
Great, she won a game no one was playing. Well done, Hillary. Really smart.
Here’s my response:
So What? That and $5 will get you a latte at Starbucks................
When some lib lamely brings up the popular vote thing, I just say, that no one is sure who won it as there is no system in place to accurately count the popular vote since it doesn’t matter in US elections. That usually shuts them up if they have any thinking going on. The mindless zombies that merely spout Slate talking points.. well, I don’t try to reason with them as they don’t have permission to be near me.
Can’t remember where I read it but another paper did a similar analysis. They basically said that Clinton got something like 4 million more votes over Trump in just California alone. However, if you completely remove California, and just count the popular vote in the other 49 states, Trump got something like 1.5 million more votes than Clinton. So basically, Clinton’s ‘popular vote’ win is really only due to one state, California. This is another example of why the electoral collage is critical.
Whenever I hear the Popular Vote argument I respond with Sox lost to Yankees 6-4, but out hit the Yanks 9-7. Like my old Hockey coach said, “When they give you crap, tell them to look at the score board.”
#BoycottStarBucks....
I have never bought anything from Starbucks............I did get a free cup of coffee on election day though..............
bottom line...52% voted for someone other than Hillary.
This logic=Let’s count the actual score at the end of a game to determine standing in league play....instead of whether a set of games was won. We could count total points won.
Right?
When a lib tells me that Mrs. Clinton won the popular vote, I respond that Trump is taller.
Right.
Many of the states don’t even bother counting the popular vote after overwhelming votes for one candidate. If they did then we would know whether or not Hillary actually got more votes than Trump. Dems know that but some stupid people don’t.
Hillary was one of four Candidates in the Election. If you consider her vote total, and compare it with the total combined votes of the other three Candidates. It becomes obvious that she had a greater number of votes against her then for her. To say she won the Popular Vote, one must use ALL the votes cast, not just the votes for two out four Candidates. With that said, she lost, any way you count it.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.