Trump lost the popular vote

[Elixir]

You must not have looked close enough. The word was "won" the popular vote. No mention of majority. Why you'd expect the OP'er to mention Stein of Johnson is beyond me.

Clinton did win the popular vote, by over 2.5 million.

She didn't receive a majority of the popular vote either. And that's if you limit it to those who actually voted. So no, she didn't win the popular vote, she only got the highest minority popular vote.

Okay, so... HRC lost the popular vote. We must say then, that Trump, more than 2,500,000 votes behind her, got CLOBBERED. Happy now?

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

You must not have looked close enough. The word was "won" the popular vote. No mention of majority. Why you'd expect the OP'er to mention Stein of Johnson is beyond me.

Clinton did win the popular vote, by over 2.5 million.

She didn't receive a majority of the popular vote either. And that's if you limit it to those who actually voted. So no, she didn't win the popular vote, she only got the highest minority popular vote.

Is this Libertarian Math? X is only greater than Y if X is greater than Z/2?

The OP said "Trump lost the popular vote by more than 2,500,000 votes." You trudge into the thread and start complaining about the "majority vote".

The OP didn't say Trump lost the popular vote by 5 million votes, which would indicate that is how far away Trump was from winning the majority of the popular vote. The OP compared Trump to the person who won the most of the popular vote. It was pretty clear, but apparently you seem too busy to nitpick instead of accepting what is true.

Trump received 2.6 million fewer votes than Clinton. Trump won the election because of 68,000 in PA, 23,000 in WI, and 11,000 in MI. Yup, 100,000 people trumped 2.6 million. Yeah, Trump won the Presidency, and we need to accept it, however, this doesn't change the fact that he lost to Clinton by about 2 pts in the popular vote, which is unprecedented for winning the EC outright.

 

[Elixir]

She didn't receive a majority of the popular vote either. And that's if you limit it to those who actually voted. So no, she didn't win the popular vote, she only got the highest minority popular vote.

Is this Libertarian Math? X is only greater than Y if X is greater than Z/2?

The OP said "Trump lost the popular vote by more than 2,500,000 votes." You trudge into the thread and start complaining about the "majority vote".

The OP didn't say Trump lost the popular vote by 5 million votes, which would indicate that is how far away Trump was from winning the majority of the popular vote. The OP compared Trump to the person who won the most of the popular vote. It was pretty clear, but apparently you seem too busy to nitpick instead of accepting what is true.

Trump received 2.6 million fewer votes than Clinton. Trump won the election because of 68,000 in PA, 23,000 in WI, and 11,000 in MI. Yup, 100,000 people trumped 2.6 million. Yeah, Trump won the Presidency, and we need to accept it, however, this doesn't change the fact that he lost to Clinton by about 2 pts in the popular vote, which is unprecedented for winning the EC outright.

Jason seems desperate to confer some sort of legitimacy on the apricot asshole. Mangled math comes right after fake news stories, in the hierarchy of "things that support Trump".

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

Jason seems desperate to confer some sort of legitimacy on the apricot asshole. Mangled math comes right after fake news stories, in the hierarchy of "things that support Trump".

That is one of the least informed responses possible, but if you desperately want to believe it go ahead. The only thing I wonder is, just because you are so willing to believe that nonsense, why do you assume I'm also willing to believe that nonsense? Don't bother answering, the answer is in the question.

What I would like to see is the candidate who won 50%+1 assume the office, and since nobody did therefore nobody should get the job.

 

[Elixir]

Jason seems desperate to confer some sort of legitimacy on the apricot asshole. Mangled math comes right after fake news stories, in the hierarchy of "things that support Trump".

That is one of the least informed responses possible, but if you desperately want to believe it go ahead. The only thing I wonder is, just because you are so willing to believe that nonsense, why do you assume I'm also willing to believe that nonsense? Don't bother answering, the answer is in the question.

What I would like to see is the candidate who won 50%+1 assume the office, and since nobody did therefore nobody should get the job.

Hey, I'd go along with that (at least for four years, starting now). Maybe do away with the office of President altogether? Or do you have some mechanism in mind for selecting a President when the general election fails to give one candidate more than 50% of the popular vote?

 

[Tom Sawyer]

Jason seems desperate to confer some sort of legitimacy on the apricot asshole. Mangled math comes right after fake news stories, in the hierarchy of "things that support Trump".

That is one of the least informed responses possible, but if you desperately want to believe it go ahead. The only thing I wonder is, just because you are so willing to believe that nonsense, why do you assume I'm also willing to believe that nonsense? Don't bother answering, the answer is in the question.

What I would like to see is the candidate who won 50%+1 assume the office, and since nobody did therefore nobody should get the job.

And I'd like to see the one who got the most votes get the job, but we're both disappointed by the fact that you people haven't updated your electoral process since the 18th century.

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

That is one of the least informed responses possible, but if you desperately want to believe it go ahead. The only thing I wonder is, just because you are so willing to believe that nonsense, why do you assume I'm also willing to believe that nonsense? Don't bother answering, the answer is in the question.

What I would like to see is the candidate who won 50%+1 assume the office, and since nobody did therefore nobody should get the job.

Hey, I'd go along with that (at least for four years, starting now). Maybe do away with the office of President altogether? Or do you have some mechanism in mind for selecting a President when the general election fails to give one candidate more than 50% of the popular vote?

The only reason you say you would go along with that is because the current president elect is of the wrong party of the two and only two and no more than two parties. You don't genuinely believe in there being nobody in charge, you're just upset the wrong party is in charge. We're getting the wrong god-king.

But as a firm believer in the two party system, the wrong god-king is still a result you believe in.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Jason seems desperate to confer some sort of legitimacy on the apricot asshole. Mangled math comes right after fake news stories, in the hierarchy of "things that support Trump".

What I would like to see is the candidate who won 50%+1 assume the office, and since nobody did therefore nobody should get the job.

You are free to want that, but please don't expect everyone else to modify their dictionaries in order to entertain your threshold for the word "win".

 

[Elixir]

What I would like to see is the candidate who won 50%+1 assume the office, and since nobody did therefore nobody should get the job.

You are free to want that, but please don't expect everyone else to modify their dictionaries in order to entertain your threshold for the word "win".

Yeah - that kind of pointless quibbling attempt at re-definition speaks to something more than an idle wish that someone had "won".

 

[Trausti]

What I would like to see is the candidate who won 50%+1 assume the office, and since nobody did therefore nobody should get the job.

Trump got 57% of electoral votes. He'll assume office January 20th.

 

[Shadowy Man]

CA is 12% of the population. Why would we not count the votes of 12% of the population?

I choose to point out the results using this way of counting because it makes me feel good. Satisfies some emotional need I have.

This is the "post-truth" world that Trump has ushered in. Facts no longer matter, only platitudes that make you feel good.

And yes, I realize you're trying to be ironical.

I basically agree with those that say the popular vote doesn't matter when it comes to determining the winner of the Presidential race. For better or worse, right now we live in a federation of states, not a single country (the one thing I have had to really explain to foreigners trying to understand American politics).

However, I also believe that a good President will realize that he represents *all* Americans and not just those who voted for him. And that's why the popular vote matters.

 

[Elixir]

Hey, I'd go along with that (at least for four years, starting now). Maybe do away with the office of President altogether? Or do you have some mechanism in mind for selecting a President when the general election fails to give one candidate more than 50% of the popular vote?

The only reason you say you would go along with that is because the current president elect is of the wrong party ...

That is probably THE least informed response possible, and total BS FYI.

You don't genuinely believe in there being nobody in charge

That's closer...

[But as a firm believer in the two party system, the wrong god-king is still a result you believe in.

Thank you for sharing your delusion about what I believe, Jason. I won't bother trying to enlighten you, as past attempts have all failed. But I do appreciate your willingness to spew your erroneous opinions of other people's stances - it make it much easier to see where you're coming from.

You avoided the question though - do you have a mechanism for the selection of a leader when nobody gets >50% of the vote?

 

[Angra Mainyu]

What I would like to see is the candidate who won 50%+1 assume the office, and since nobody did therefore nobody should get the job.

Trump got 57% of electoral votes. He'll assume office January 20th.

To be a bit more precise, he almost certainly will get about that percentage. He hasn't won yet, though. If most of the electors decided to vote for someone else (e. g., Romney, Kasich, or Clinton), then that person would win and take office, as long as they meet the conditions to be POTUS. That's not realistic, though as far as I know, that would be constitutionally sound.

 

[fromderinside]

More realistically, a College vote yielding less than 50% of the vote to one candidate results in the republican House electing Donald FF Trump.

 

[skepticalbip]

Trump got 57% of electoral votes. He'll assume office January 20th.

To be a bit more precise, he almost certainly will get about that percentage. He hasn't won yet, though. If most of the electors decided to vote for someone else (e. g., Romney, Kasich, or Clinton), then that person would win and take office, as long as they meet the conditions to be POTUS. That's not realistic, though as far as I know, that would be constitutionally sound.

Not quite. The States determine how their Electoral votes are to be allocated so different States can do it differently. However, once those votes are delivered to Congress, that isn't the end of it. The Congress must certify the count before it is binding. Any particular Electoral vote or votes can be challenged by a member of Congress and changed after debate if found to be improper.

A revolt by members of the Electoral College would have to involve a conspiracy that included the State governments and the U.S. Congress to be successful.

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

You avoided the question though - do you have a mechanism for the selection of a leader when nobody gets >50% of the vote?

IRV.

And you do believe in the two party system, so therefore your temporary shallow agreement with me is based not on the principle of opposition to authority but on the wrong god-king being installed.

 

[laughing dog]

You must not have looked close enough. The word was "won" the popular vote. No mention of majority. Why you'd expect the OP'er to mention Stein of Johnson is beyond me.

Clinton did win the popular vote, by over 2.5 million.

She didn't receive a majority of the popular vote either. And that's if you limit it to those who actually voted. So no, she didn't win the popular vote, she only got the highest minority popular vote.

She got the most votes which is what winning the popular vote means. It's just like a race - the person who comes in ahead of everyone else is the winner.

But winning the popular vote is not the criterion the USA uses to determine who gets the Presidency. So why does it matter so much to those who feel the need to spin this into something else?

 

[dismal]

Jason seems desperate to confer some sort of legitimacy on the apricot asshole.

Now I'm no Latin scholar, but it seems to me winning the way the law defines victory would be what gives someone "legitimacy".

In this case Trump.

But if we want to throw out the "legitimate" way of defining victory and wax emotionally about how things might have been had the rules been different and the voting the same, it's worth noting Hillary didn't even win the popular vote if you don't count California.

 

[skepticalbip]

She didn't receive a majority of the popular vote either. And that's if you limit it to those who actually voted. So no, she didn't win the popular vote, she only got the highest minority popular vote.

She got the most votes which is what winning the popular vote means. It's just like a race - the person who comes in ahead of everyone else is the winner.

But winning the popular vote is not the criterion the USA uses to determine who gets the Presidency. So why does it matter so much to those who feel the need to spin this into something else?

That is what I have been asking. However, for some reason the Democrat talking heads on every panel show I have seen since the election feel compelled to point out the national popular vote - even if it has nothing to do with the subject being discussed.

 

[Elixir]

But if we want to throw out the "legitimate" way of defining victory and wax emotionally about how things might have been had the rules been different ...

What a contortion... you might as well say that the US "won the battle of Pearl Harbor on Dec 7, 1941", since there was only one "legitimately" victorious side in WWII.

it's worth noting Hillary didn't even win the popular vote if you don't count California.

It's worth noting that, despite the other side of your mouth telling us it's irrelevant? Hypocrisy, much?

for some reason the Democrat talking heads on every panel show I have seen since the election feel compelled to point out the national popular vote -

Even dismal says that the popular vote is worth pointing out (but only in a "what if" scenario that would have made Trump win it.)