Clinton won no ‘popular vote’ since it didn’t exist.

[Cardinal]

Many smart people are baffled by Relativity and Quantum Mechanics. Many are baffled by evolution. Many are baffled by magicians. When the magician explains the trick, it all seems pretty easy. This subject about votes does baffle a lot of people, and it is hard for them to see. Autostereograms are two-dimensional (2D) images with repeating patterns that hide an underlying three-dimensional (3D) image. Some people try all day and can't see them. Others blur their eyes and start to see them in minutes. Just because something is baffling doesn't mean it's not true.

 

[Rob Larrikin]

That's not true at all. Saying more voters voted for Hillary than Trump is a factually true statement.

Voters may have thought they were voting for Trump or Hillary, but they were actually voting for electors.

It happened.

Yes. People voted for electors, and the electors voted for Trump. It happened.

People voted on November 8th, and on that day more of them voted for Hillary Clinton than for Donald Trump.

Wrong. People voted for electors on November 8th, and of the electors voted for, more voted for Trump than Hillary Clinton.

your attempt to frame it as though there literally were not more votes for Hillary on that day is just wrong.

Wrong. My pointing out that there was no popular vote that day is just right.

 

[Rob Larrikin]

Very intellectual. You're so intellectual you couldn't figure out that voters were voting for electors, not Trump or Hillary. The electors then voted for Trump. You can pretend more voters voted for Hillary, when none did at all, if you wish, but you'll be wrong.

Happy dreaming.

 

[Anagram]

Voters may have thought they were voting for Trump or Hillary, but they were actually voting for electors.



Yes. People voted for electors, and the electors voted for Trump. It happened.



Wrong. People voted for electors on November 8th, and of the electors voted for, more voted for Trump than Hillary Clinton.



Wrong. My pointing out that there was no popular vote that day is just right.

People vote for electors to vote directed to vote for their preferred candidate. Their vote on the ballot is for the candidate they support. This is a distinction without an actual difference.

 

[Cardinal]

Very intellectual. You're so intellectual you couldn't figure out that voters were voting for electors, not Trump or Hillary. The electors then voted for Trump. You can pretend more voters voted for Hillary, when none did at all, if you wish, but you'll be wrong.

Happy dreaming.

You cracked the code, man. Now you've gotta get the truth out before The Man shuts you down.

 

[Rob Larrikin]

People vote for electors to vote directed to vote for their preferred candidate.

Yes, they vote for electors. Not for Trump or Hillary. Electors. That’s who they vote for. The electors’ job is to then vote for the preferred candidate. Therefore it doesn’t matter how many voters there are. What matters is how many electors there are.

That’s why it’s called the Electoral College system. It’s not about voters. It’s about electors.

 

[Rob Larrikin]

You cracked the code, man. Now you've gotta get the truth out before The Man shuts you down.

Cute, but this is literally centuries old. No secret. Various politicians over the decades have tricked people into thinking there was a "popular vote" to make their loss seem less bad. It's an old sleight of hand trick, and it does fool the masses.

 

[shrubnose]

Also fact: I ate at Wimpy's Hamburgers in Chicago only one time, I was not impressed.

This thread baffles me.

:bon_voyag

I hear you.

guess Larriken had something to say and he said it.

 

[Cardinal]

That’s why it’s called the Electoral College system. It’s not about voters. It’s about electors.

Mind.

Blown.

 

[shrubnose]

Every day Liberals say Clinton "won the popular vote". Millions of them. That's not old. It's today. Millions of conservatives agree with them. Today.

Very, very few people correct this.

If you don't like me correcting it, find another hobby.

You didn't correct anything because you're wrong.Clinton did win the popular vote.Trump has cried about this many times.

Wake up and smell the coffee.

BTW: There'll be another election in 2020.

 

[Rob Larrikin]

You didn't correct anything

While you were whittling I corrected plenty.

because you're wrong.

I’m a hundred percent right.

Clinton did win the popular vote.

There was no popular vote, and if there was no popular vote she couldn’t have won one. You’re confusing car races with horse races. They had a car race which Trump won fair and square, and you keep muttering, “If’n it’d been a horse race Hillary woulda shoulda won it fer sure, yep, uh huh, by Jiminy…”

Trump has cried about this many times.

Regardless of what Clinton, Trump, conservatives or liberals say, the OP is correct. Many people believe this old horse chestnut, because some politicians use it to make their loss look less of a loss, just as Clinton is.

Wake up and smell the coffee.

I did that in the morning, some 9 hours ago.

BTW: There'll be another election in 2020.

Yes, it will be another Electoral College vote, and once again Trump will win, and once again Clinton will try and palm off on you the idea that she won some mythical ‘popular vote’ that never happened.

 

[Anagram]

Yes, they vote for electors. Not for Trump or Hillary. Electors. That’s who they vote for. The electors’ job is to then vote for the preferred candidate. Therefore it doesn’t matter how many voters there are. What matters is how many electors there are.

That’s why it’s called the Electoral College system. It’s not about voters. It’s about electors.

It doesn't matter how many voters there are, at least for who wins the election. And people do vote for electors. Of course, to do that they select a candidate on a ballot they want the electors from their state to vote for. A perfectly reasonable way to describe that process, and probably the most accurate way since the candidate's name is what they actually mark, is that they vote for that candidate. On November 8th, more people checked Hillary Clinton's name on the ballot than Donald Trump's. It is perfectly accurate to say more people voted for her than Trump.

It doesn't matter in the context of who won. It certainly doesn't mean more people would've voted for her if we had a direct election. But it happened. The argument you're trying to make here is simply incorrect in that respect.

 

[shrubnose]

While you were whittling I corrected plenty.



I’m a hundred percent right.



There was no popular vote, and if there was no popular vote she couldn’t have won one. You’re confusing car races with horse races. They had a car race which Trump won fair and square, and you keep muttering, “If’n it’d been a horse race Hillary woulda shoulda won it fer sure, yep, uh huh, by Jiminy…”



Regardless of what Clinton, Trump, conservatives or liberals say, the OP is correct. Many people believe this old horse chestnut, because some politicians use it to make their loss look less of a loss, just as Clinton is.



I did that in the morning, some 9 hours ago.

Yes, it will be another Electoral College vote, and once again Trump will win, and once again Clinton will try and palm off on you the idea that she won some mythical ‘popular vote’ that never happened

.

You don't know any of that for a fact because it hasn't happened yet and there are other possibilities.I'm not wishing for this but they both could be dead and buried before 2020 gets here.Or other people could be nominated.

Let's wait a while and see what happens.

 

[Rob Larrikin]

It doesn't matter how many voters there are, at least for who wins the election. And people do vote for electors. Of course, to do that they select a candidate on a ballot they want the electors from their state to vote for. A perfectly reasonable way to describe that process, and probably the most accurate way since the candidate's name is what they actually mark, is that they vote for that candidate. On November 8th, more people checked Hillary Clinton's name on the ballot than Donald Trump's. It is perfectly accurate to say more people voted for her than Trump.

Regardless of the process, and the pretty pictures and names, the fact is that the voters are there to elect electors, and that’s what they do. Those electors then have the job of electing the POTUS, not the voters.

Hear that?

NOT the voters.

It’s the Electoral College system, not the popular vote system, and no matter how you would like to think the votes can be extracted from that to say they prefer one candidate or the other, you actually have NO idea how the popular vote would go were they to have one. The two systems are so different nobody – and I mean nobody – can assume anything like that. That is why I used the analogy of a car race and a horse race. It is literally as hard to make such an assumption as it would be to assume how one might do in a horse race based on what they did in a car race.

It doesn't matter in the context of who won. It certainly doesn't mean more people would've voted for her if we had a direct election. But it happened.

Nothing of the sort happened. The voters voted for electors, not candidates. The only people who voted for Trump or Hillary were the electors. If the voters did not vote for the candidates, you cannot say they “would have” voted one way or the other. You simply don’t know who they would have voted for in a popular vote election.

The argument you're trying to make here is simply incorrect in that respect.

You’ve simply been fooled by smart politicians into thinking you can fashion such decisions about ‘popular votes’ out of the Electoral College system. You can’t. It’s impossible.

If you want to know who would be more popular in a popular vote election, you will need to hold one. If you do, then both candidates will be able to prepare for that election, and will campaign to win as many single votes as they can, and will aim all their strategies at that. Who will win? Who will be more popular? Nobody knows. You don’t. I don’t. That is the ONLY WAY you can find out. Not using tea leaves, chicken bones, dice or the carcass of a spent Electoral College election. Any so called “results” you get will be about as accurate as a sniper scope on a nerf gun.

 

[Chomsky]

Many Democrats whine about how Clinton won the popular vote, and many conservatives agree with them, but this is a simple fallacy. You are all wrong.

The Founders set up the ‘The Electoral College’ system to make elections fairer to states that might otherwise be ignored by candidates, and for other reasons, and that is the system that was used in the Trump-Clinton election. Trump knew it was the system to be used, and planned his campaign around this. Clinton knew it was the system to be used, and planned her campaign around this.

At this point let’s use the analogy of a car race. Say you could either have a horse race (popular vote) or a car race (Electoral College). If it was a car race then both candidates would plan their race around car racing. It would be stupid to practice on horseback if you were going to race cars, so they would both practice in cars.

The race day arrives and both candidates get in their cars. The flag is dropped and they rocket down the track. The race will go all day long. When they reach the mid-day mark, Clinton decides to have a pit stop to top up her radiator with water, though it didn’t really need any. The pit crew reluctantly top it up but this costs valuable time. Trump is in the lead. He never pulls over for water. Clinton loses the race by a minute, and Fake News is outraged.

Journalists ask Clinton, “Why did you stop for water when you didn’t need water?”
She replies, “Well, um, when you race horses for so long, they need to be hydrated. Had it been a horse race I would have won, because the orange rapist misogynist didn’t stop to hydrate.”
Fake News put up the headlines accordingly: “Misogynist Trump would have lost had horses been used!”
Trump is incensed. He says, “Fake News and Crooked Hillary are just making excuses.”
A journalist asks, “But if you DID race horses, and she gave the horse water, and you didn’t, you WOULD have lost, isn’t that true?”
“Baloney,” Trump says. “If we had a horse race I would have also watered my horse at midday. But it wasn’t a horse race. It was a car race.”

Today Clinton brags that she WOULD have won if it had been a popular vote, but had the election been a popular vote election, Trump would have campaigned differently, to win the popular vote election.

So just as Clinton could not say she would have won the race had it been a horse race, she cannot say she would have won the election had it been a popular election. Equally, she cannot say she won the popular vote in this last election, because there was no popular vote.

As a side note, had it been a popular election, and Trump won, Hillary would be whining that had it been an Electoral College vote, she would have won. Bet on it.

She’s the biggest sore loser in the world, and she’s an embarrassment to America.

Your post doesn't support your thread title.

 

[APB212]

The "popular vote" card is Hillary's attempt to claim a moral victory (ironic, coming from her). There is no such thing as a "moral victory", it's just an excuse to deflect the blame for losing while being a sanctimonious twat. The only victory that matters is the one that wins you the game, and winning is always moral provided you followed the rules - which Hillary didn't anyway, so she can piss off.

 

[Rob Larrikin]

Your post doesn't support your thread title.

The thread title is, "Clinton won no ‘popular vote’ since it didn’t exist."

In the post you refer to I said, "[Clinton] cannot say she won the popular vote in this last election, because there was no popular vote."

Almost identical. So yes, my post does indeed support my thread title.

 

[Rob Larrikin]

The "popular vote" card is Hillary's attempt to claim a moral victory (ironic, coming from her). There is no such thing as a "moral victory", it's just an excuse to deflect the blame for losing while being a sanctimonious twat. The only victory that matters is the one that wins you the game, and winning is always moral provided you followed the rules - which Hillary didn't anyway, so she can piss off.

Well said.

 

[Chomsky]

The thread title is, "Clinton won no ‘popular vote’ since it didn’t exist."

In the post you refer to I said, "[Clinton] cannot say she won the popular vote in this last election, because there was no popular vote."

Almost identical. So yes, my post does indeed support my thread title.

Like I said, your OP doesn't prove-out the thread title.

 

[Bodi]

A hundred years from now some people will look back at this situation and laugh but right now some people are still crying.It's all a matter of perspective.

I like that but I think the future people will be scratching their heads like... WTF?

 

[Lethargic Aptitude]

Many Democrats whine about how Clinton won the popular vote, and many conservatives agree with them, but this is a simple fallacy. You are all wrong.

The Founders set up the ‘The Electoral College’ system to make elections fairer to states that might otherwise be ignored by candidates, and for other reasons, and that is the system that was used in the Trump-Clinton election. Trump knew it was the system to be used, and planned his campaign around this. Clinton knew it was the system to be used, and planned her campaign around this.

At this point let’s use the analogy of a car race. Say you could either have a horse race (popular vote) or a car race (Electoral College). If it was a car race then both candidates would plan their race around car racing. It would be stupid to practice on horseback if you were going to race cars, so they would both practice in cars.

The race day arrives and both candidates get in their cars. The flag is dropped and they rocket down the track. The race will go all day long. When they reach the mid-day mark, Clinton decides to have a pit stop to top up her radiator with water, though it didn’t really need any. The pit crew reluctantly top it up but this costs valuable time. Trump is in the lead. He never pulls over for water. Clinton loses the race by a minute, and Fake News is outraged.

Journalists ask Clinton, “Why did you stop for water when you didn’t need water?”
She replies, “Well, um, when you race horses for so long, they need to be hydrated. Had it been a horse race I would have won, because the orange rapist misogynist didn’t stop to hydrate.”
Fake News put up the headlines accordingly: “Misogynist Trump would have lost had horses been used!”
Trump is incensed. He says, “Fake News and Crooked Hillary are just making excuses.”
A journalist asks, “But if you DID race horses, and she gave the horse water, and you didn’t, you WOULD have lost, isn’t that true?”
“Baloney,” Trump says. “If we had a horse race I would have also watered my horse at midday. But it wasn’t a horse race. It was a car race.”

Today Clinton brags that she WOULD have won if it had been a popular vote, but had the election been a popular vote election, Trump would have campaigned differently, to win the popular vote election.

So just as Clinton could not say she would have won the race had it been a horse race, she cannot say she would have won the election had it been a popular election. Equally, she cannot say she won the popular vote in this last election, because there was no popular vote.

As a side note, had it been a popular election, and Trump won, Hillary would be whining that had it been an Electoral College vote, she would have won. Bet on it.

She’s the biggest sore loser in the world, and she’s an embarrassment to America.

Get over it, more Americans voted for Mrs. Clinton than Trump. I dont care what excuse that you think of, those are the facts.

Of course it was a no win election, since they both were bottom of the barrel losers. No matter who won America lost.

 

[LunaRose]

The "popular vote" card is Hillary's attempt to claim a moral victory (ironic, coming from her). There is no such thing as a "moral victory", it's just an excuse to deflect the blame for losing while being a sanctimonious twat. The only victory that matters is the one that wins you the game, and winning is always moral provided you followed the rules - which Hillary didn't anyway, so she can piss off.

Yes, True....Her "putting the blame on everything and everyone else" tour is ridiculous. But this is another one of Larrikins post attempting to gas light trying to alter reality. Facts don't change or disappear, for example... In a football game the team with the most yards does not always win, but that team did in fact have more yards than the other team. There is no moral victory in having more yards its all about the score board, but you can't deny the facts what happened during that game.


Clinton received more popular votes than Trump - Fact ....... Trump received more electoral votes than Clinton, which won him the election. - Fact ........Game Over

 

[iguanaman]

trump is by far the sorest winner of all time. Besides trump being such a gross and lewd embarrassment, the trump/miller/bannon triumvirate is a clear and present danger to this Nation and the World ...

But the "good news" is that what that trio wants is so abhorrent and would have such bad repercussions that they will get none of it done. Trump has already set a record at 9 months in and not one single significant Bill passed in Congress. The same is happening in England with Brexit. It's been a year since it passed and no one there has any idea how to go forward. Their Govt. is in shambles just like ours. Strange times indeed and Putin must be so thrilled too. I'm afraid this is why we have politicians, they aren't as useless as some believed.

 

[Port & Starboard]

I read your comment and all I have to say is you're rehashing old news.Come back when you have less time to spend with us and something interesting to share.

:lol:

Geees Shrub, I was expecting the 40 year regional party quote over again. j/k.

 

[Bodi]

There was no popular vote, which makes it impossible for Clinton to have won any popular vote. Fact.

Dude... the popular vote is the total number of votes... note any part of sn actual election. Any semi.competent citizen would understand that winning the popular is nothing more than a simple stat and has nothing to do with the election.

Hilary got more votes. Popular votes. Fact.
Trump won the Electoral College vote. Fact.

Both are facts. Only uneducated citizens would dispute this.

More electors voted for Trump, which is all that matters in an Electoral College election. If you wish to have ‘popular votes’ you need a popular vote election. They are two different races. You are asking, “Which candidate’s horse would have had water in a horse race?”

It wasn’t a horse race. It was a car race. You can’t talk about watering the horse in a car race. Had it been a horse race, Trump would have watered his horse too.

It is literally like you have no idea how the process actually works...