Did Hillary really win the popular vote

Home Forums Politics Did Hillary really win the popular vote

Viewing 35 posts - 1 through 35 (of 35 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • #1733418

    klugeryid
    Participant

    Here are the numbers
    Donald J. Trump Republican 62,980,160
    Hillary R. Clinton Democratic 65,845,063
    Hillary won the popular vote by 2.865m votes

    Now In the words of none other than Nancy Pelosi
    In new York and California if a republican ran against a glass of water with a D on it, the water would win.
    So let’s remove those two states from the mix and see the picture

    California gave Hillary a lead of 4.27m votes (greater than her entire win lead)

    New York have Hillary a lead of 1.736m votes

    Together those two states where according to the number one democrat in office today are a clear gimme for the democrats, gave Hillary a lead of over 6 million votes.

    Put in other words, if you remove those two states where there is really no contest, she loses to Donald Trump by 3.142m votes

    Or again in other words, excepting those two non contests, she loses to the Donald by a larger number than she won when including those non contest areas.

    #1733576

    2scents
    Participant

    Son what’s your point?

    As of today, those states have not been removed so their votes count..

    #1733580

    WolfishMusings
    Participant

    There is one flaw in your argument: Despite your silly argument that they should not count, New York and California do, in fact, count.

    The Wolf

    #1733581

    ☕️coffee addict
    Participant

    To play devils advocate

    If you take away states where trump would for sure win then Hillary would have won

    #1733598

    Joseph
    Participant

    Just let California secede into its own country and, shoin, Trump wins the popular vote and America is a deep red country,

    #1733586

    You’ve decided to remove some guaranteed Democrat votes, but not guaranteed Republican votes.

    #1733610

    👑RebYidd23
    Participant

    Let’s say Hillary is actually a glass of water. Why should a vote for her not count?

    #1733599

    akuperma
    Participant

    1. The Democrats screwed up badly. They worked on running up the popular vote totals (in “blue” states) in order to a “mandate” and ignored the “purple states.” The Republicans focused on getting their voters out where it mattered and won the “purple” states. In the American system, a party should ignore states that you are certain to win or lose, and concentrate on the “in between” states. The Democrats must have thought we were using the French system (straight popular vote).

    2. Please note that Hilary did not “win” the popular vote, she only had a plurality. The difference was in third party votes, particularly for the Libertarians. If we were using the French system, a runoff would have been required.

    3, Also note that one reason for not using popular vote nationally is that states have different systems, e.g. some states let felons vote, others do not. Some states allow activists to collect absentee ballots and turn them in to be counted, and others do not. Also not that many of the big cities (New York and Chicago) are infamous for voter fraud, but in an electoral college system they only affect one state, not the national system.

    #1733715

    klugeryid
    Participant

    Ry 23
    I have an affinity for your sense of humor so I’ll answer your comment direct even though I really answered it already.
    I didn’t say the votes don’t or shouldn’t count.
    I am just pointing out that most votes in NY and California are not really a vote for Hillary.
    They are just a vote for d.
    Being as that’s so, the fact that she got more votes than trump doesn’t show that she is more wanted than him
    And being that anyway the election is not decided on popular vote, it doesn’t really help her.
    So basically, she lost outright. But some are screaming, no fair!!! More people wanted her. The system is messed up!!
    To that I’m responding, not true. You don’t know that more people want HER because that huge lead is actually not from people who chose HER. they just chose d

    #1733683

    ubiquitin
    Participant

    I can d o you one better,
    Really Trumps’ election was unanimous

    Just need to remove the 65,845,063 votes for Hillary , remove any votes for Jill Stein, Gary Johnson, or anybody else for that matter.

    and you are left with only 62,980,160 votes that count. EVERY single one of which was cast for his glorious Emperor of Mankind, oheiv Yisorel par excellence Donald Trump

    Amazing stuff!

    #1733714

    klugeryid
    Participant

    Your all asking good
    Random, which state would you put so solidly in republican control that a “glass of water with an r “would win?
    To the others, my point was, to all those agitating that she really won because she won the popular vote count.
    In the courtroom of diverse ideas, she lost.
    But you will respond, that makes no sense nor any difference, because technically she got the most votes. To that I say, that’s meaningless because it’s the electoral College that counts. And she lost that one. Big time.
    So to the wolf. I didn’t say they shouldn’t count. And contrary to your statement. They actually don’t count. In the sense of winning the election. It’s not the popular vote that wins.
    To coffee addict.
    Your correct that’s why the pundits always talk about “the battleground states ” because it’s all about them.

    Again my point is in the battle for winning the most diverse cross section of opinions in the country, which is sort of the rationale behind the electoral college, trump won. Big time. Huge! In fact
    Sorry Hillary supporters

    #1733727

    ☕ DaasYochid ☕
    Participant

    Again my point is in the battle for winning the most diverse cross section of opinions in the country, which is sort of the rationale behind the electoral college, trump won.

    No, your point was that aside from NY and CA, Trump won the popular vote. Removing them is as silly as removing the biggest red states, where they’d vote for a pickle if it had an “R” next to it.

    #1733733

    ☕ DaasYochid ☕
    Participant

    The biggest arguments against caring about who won the popular vote are:

    1) That’s not out system
    2) Since it’s not our system, the candidates aren’t trying to win the popular election, and projecting who would win a popular election by counting votes in an electoral college election is not valid.

    #1733734

    Sam Klein
    Participant

    Stop fooling your minds into thinking Trump and our politicians run the USA and each state.

    HASHEM RUNS THE WORLD AND HAS A PLAN FOR EACH COUNTRY AND EACH PERSONS LIFE.

    #1733732

    👑RebYidd23
    Participant

    Klugeryid, in a two-party system, usually there is barely even such a thing as a vote for, there are only votes against. Most Trump voters were only voting against Hillary, and most Hillary voters were only voting against Trump.

    #1733738

    klugeryid
    Participant

    Dy, I asked before, which states would b pickle with a r next to it win?

    Sam Klein
    True and he is causing all of us to have this discussion
    So why did he cause you to type in all caps causing people to think that someone is mad?

    Ubiq you seem to have missed the nuanced point here. Maybe it went over your head?

    Ky totally true. But not so in California and NY
    Where they are actually voting for d
    So perhaps if you look at it your way actually the only votes FOR her are actually in NY and California while according to continuing this logic trump got zero votes for him. I’m which case she actually did win the popular vote. How do you like that! I never looked at it that way
    I told you I like your style. !!

    #1733754

    ☕ DaasYochid ☕
    Participant

    Alabama, Alaska, Idaho, Kansas, Mississippi

    #1733758

    ZionGate
    Participant

    Re: Chicago… infamous voter fraud.
    1960 , Cooke County, Mayor Daley & machine.
    Famous infamous voter fraud indeed.

    #1733757

    ZionGate
    Participant

    Don’t gave the stat page in front of me, but it could easily be checked. Most counties in NYS went for Trump. Hillary’s counties had huge population and Dem registration, giving her the state. ……Thank G-D for Electoral College and live legal voters countrywide who outvoted dead ones and double dippers for Hill.

    #1733760

    ubiquitin
    Participant

    “But some are screaming, no fair!!! More people wanted her. The system is messed up!!
    To that I’m responding, not true. You don’t know that more people want HER because that huge lead is actually not from people who chose HER. they just chose d”

    So what? Are you suggesting that if the popular vote was what mattered then those new Yorkers and Californian s who didn’t v “choose HER. They just chose d.” Would have voted for Trump?

    (I grant that it isn’t automatically true that if the popular vote mattered Hillary would have won, the campaigns would have been different, many new Yorker republicans voters who sat out would probably have voted changing the tally dramatic ly , are there more of these than Texan Democrats who sat out?) But this is not what you are saying

    #1733776

    🐵 ⌨ Gamanit
    Participant

    I think the reason Hillary won the popular vote is because of the electoral college system. Republicans in blue states don’t bother voting. If it would be the popular vote that mattered it’s possible there would be a lot more trump votes.

    #1733781

    klugeryid
    Participant

    Dy
    Take them out
    They combined gave trump 1.328m total more than Hillary
    Without them and without California he still wins by 1.8m
    But that’s not really my point
    My point was
    Our elections are decided by electoral College
    The popular vote count is sort of a side show concurrent popularity contest.
    And in this case my point was she started with a huge lead which she could not even hold

    #1733783

    klugeryid
    Participant

    Ubiq
    No I’m not suggesting that.
    If that was how the election was decided then it would be tough luck and had the totally come out this way we’d be suffering under the hill
    However now that it’s only a popularity contest, I’m claiming it really doesn’t show what it seems to show due to her overwhelming starting lead

    #1733759

    ubiquitin
    Participant

    “Ubiq you seem to have missed the nuanced point here”

    Lol there is no nuanced point, as several posters pointed out

    Furthermore, why does it matter that they would vote for any Democrat. Even if true that is because their opinion allies with Democrat ic policies.
    In fact if anything this is Less true regarding Trump. Many voters who stand for “family values” support the military have deep religous conviction s etc all of which Trump is the antithesis of voted for him anyway.
    Do their votes not count?

    You are deluding yourself if you think only Democratic voters automaticly vote democrat. But republicans strictly vote for candidate s whose policies they support.

    And if if that absurd contention we’re true.
    It wouldn’t matter one iota.

    #1733788

    klugeryid
    Participant

    Again
    The nuanced point is
    It doesn’t matter as far as who wins (were the winner to be decided based on popular vote, she won fair and square (well possibly not fairly but that’s a whole nother can of worms, and maybe trump too if you buy into the Russian stuff) )
    And as far as popularity, I’m pointing out that any democrat starts with such a huge lead in the gimme states, that he’s ultimate lead actually shows that in the battle grounds she lost.
    It’s nuanced because it looks like a win but it gets broken down to
    first of all it’s not a win because that’s not what decides the contest, and also even for what it seems to show, aka that she is popular, it’s not really showing.

    You can disagree, you can even prove that in wrong. But to say “there is no nuanced point ” is just wrong

    #1733800

    Sam Klein
    Participant

    Kluger
    “You asked why all caps?”

    Cause a person’s corrupt human psychological mind (yetzer hara) IS SO POWERFUL that it fools You to think that all these avoda zaras of money, politicians etc… Run the world and your life which is 100 percent false cause we all know Hashem RUNS the world.

    It takes a loud caps lock note to take it serious and let it get into your head seriously so you start to wake yourself up and realize the truth. HASHEM RUNS THE WORLD

    #1733811

    ohreli1
    Participant

    Hashem clearly put the idea of the Electoral College into the minds of the Founding Fathers to ensure that Hillary Clinton would not get elected.

    #1733868

    ubiquitin
    Participant

    Ok so here is the nuance you think you have:

    “It’s nuanced because it looks like a win but it gets broken down to
    first of all it’s not a win because that’s not what decides the contest…,”

    that isnt a nuance that is something everyone with an elementary school civics lesson knows

    ” …and also even for what it seems to show, aka that she is popular, it’s not really showing.”

    Again, 1) why do you assume that more Democrats automatically
    vote for the democratic candidtae than republicans for the Republican?
    and even if true, 2) why do yo uassume that they dont vote for the democrat because they like democratic policies, so yes they vote for the democrat whether it is hillary or a glass of water. they might not like HER per se, but they support her policies, which undermines your whole point ” in the battle for winning the most diverse cross section of opinions in the country, which is sort of the rationale behind the electoral college, trump won.”

    #1733890

    klugeryid
    Participant

    They definitely do vote democrat because they align with democrat policy
    And I don’t think that is true only on the democrat side

    Just in sheer numbers the democrats have more automatics then the republicans do

    #1733930

    👑RebYidd23
    Participant

    It’s not necessarily that they support the policies of the glass of water. It’s more that they oppose the policies of the other guy.

    #1733979

    ubiquitin
    Participant

    “Just in sheer numbers the democrats have more automatics then the republicans do”

    Even if true, (and I’m not sure how you’ve reached that conclusion, arguably this election showed the opposite: Hillary was a more traditional Democratic candidate not much different than what democrats voted for in 2008, Trump was not a “Republican” candidate at all , He overturned many things traditionally thought of as Republican ideas, he opposes free trade, stands against “Family values” etc etc etc Yet many Republican voters voted for him because of the Letter next to his name, (and because they hate Hillary as RY points out))

    But even if more Democrats are “more automatic” and really hate Hillary and only voted for her “because they align with democrat policy ” So what? that still undermines your theory that “Again my point is in the battle for winning the most diverse cross section of opinions in the country”

    The bottom line is, More people in this country want the Democrat (candidate or ideas, it doesn’t matter) than the Republican one.

    (As I pointed out, though you could argue that the above isn’t neccesarily true, since there is no way to know how a real popular vote would have gone, as the campaigns would be different, and perhaps more people who feel their votes don’t count, like NY republicans, would vote but that’s is not what you said)

    #1733995

    ☕ DaasYochid ☕
    Participant

    As I pointed out, though you could argue that the above isn’t neccesarily true, since there is no way to know how a real popular vote would have gone, as the campaigns would be different, and perhaps more people who feel their votes don’t count, like NY republicans, would vote but that’s is not what you said

    I, however, did say that, and it’s a compelling argument to not care about the popular vote.

    #1736117

    👑RebYidd23
    Participant

    I would vote for a glass of water over any Republican or Democrat.

    #1736124

    lakewhut
    Participant

    It’s hard to account for legal votes. In NY and CA, it’s easy for an illegal immigrant to vote. At the time of the elections, quite a few house seats in CA and NY were red. The dems would never look into illegal immigrants voting.

    #1736243

    MrSarahLevine613
    Participant

    ” Since it’s not our system, the candidates aren’t trying to win the popular election, and projecting who would win a popular election by counting votes in an electoral college election is not valid.”

    Right.

    1. The electoral college was instituted to make sure that each state had a voice. (Even so — Cal/NY have more votes and thus more voice).

    2. Trump did not campaign in NY and CAL. I assume that Hillary did not spend a lot of times where Trump was going to win by large margins. The campaign would fundamentally change if it was a straight popular vote. (I wonder if a straight popular vote would encourage more third party candidates because they could actually directly effect the election).

Viewing 35 posts - 1 through 35 (of 35 total)
  • You must be logged in to reply to this topic.


Trending