Trump lost the popular vote

[otto]

I'm not trying to get in Dismal's head but could it be that the only reason he is talking about the national popular vote is because it is a theme that has been pounded by Democrats since the election?

Do you imagine that had HRC "won" the electoral college, and Trump had taken the popular vote by 2,500,000+ votes, he and Faux news, Breitbart et al would not be howling like banshees? It's quite remarkable enough for mention, being as unprecedented as it is.

Before this election, in Gallup polls since they began asking in 1944, only about 20% of the public has supported the current system of awarding all of a state's electoral votes to the presidential candidate who receives the most votes in each separate state (not mentioned in the U.S. Constitution, but later enacted by 48 states) (with about 70% opposed and about 10% undecided).

Support for a national popular vote is strong among Republicans, Democrats, and Independent voters, as well as every demographic group in every state surveyed. In the 41 red, blue, and purple states surveyed, overall support has been in the 67-81% range - in rural states, in small states, in Southern and border states, in big states, and in other states polled.

Most Americans don't ultimately care whether their presidential candidate wins or loses in their state or district . . . they care whether he/she wins the White House. Voters want to know, that no matter to their candidate. Most Americans think it is wrong that the candidate with the most where they live, even if they were on the losing side, their vote actually was equally counted and mattered popular votes can lose. We don't allow this in any other election in our representative republic.

The National Popular Vote bill was approved this year by a unanimous bipartisan House committee vote in both Georgia (16 electoral votes) and Missouri (10).
Since 2006, the bill has passed 34 state legislative chambers in 23 rural, small, medium, large, Democratic, Republican and purple states with 261 electoral votes, including one house in Arizona (11), Arkansas (6), Maine (4), Michigan (16), Nevada (6), New Mexico (5), North Carolina (15), and Oklahoma (7), and both houses in Colorado (9).
The bill has been enacted by 11 small, medium, and large jurisdictions with 165 electoral votes – 61% of the way to guaranteeing the majority of Electoral College votes and the presidency to the candidate with the most national popular votes.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Clinton lost popular vote too .... to Apathy. More people voted for Apathy than Clinton.

Votes for Obama in 2012 - 65,915,795
Votes for Clinton so far 2016 - 65,455,765

Difference? < 500,000 nationally

It interesting that Clinton would go on to lose in Ohio, by a lot, Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, and Michigan... yet nearly get the same number of votes as Obama did in 2012, who won the electoral college handily... and beat Trump by 2.7 million votes... and lose the EC.

Obama only won California by 23 pts, Clinton by 29 pts.
Obama only won Massachusetts by 23 pts, Clinton by 27 pts.

Trump underperformed Romney in Blue states. Clinton underperformed Obama in red and purple ones... except the Virginia and Colorado. Just 150,000 votes shy in PA of Obama. Hundreds of thousands in Ohio, Michigan, and Wisconsin. Here's the big rub. In Ohio and Michigan, Trump outperformed Romney by around 100,000 votes, in Wisconsin he actually underperformed Romney!

 

[skepticalbip]

Clinton lost popular vote too .... to Apathy. More people voted for Apathy than Clinton.

Votes for Obama in 2012 - 65,915,795
Votes for Clinton so far 2016 - 65,455,765

Difference? < 500,000 nationally

It interesting that Clinton would go on to lose in Ohio, by a lot, Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, and Michigan... yet nearly get the same number of votes as Obama did in 2012, who won the electoral college handily... and beat Trump by 2.7 million votes... and lose the EC.

Obama only won California by 23 pts, Clinton by 29 pts.
Obama only won Massachusetts by 23 pts, Clinton by 27 pts.

Trump underperformed Romney in Blue states. Clinton underperformed Obama in red and purple ones... except the Virginia and Colorado. Just 150,000 votes shy in PA of Obama. Hundreds of thousands in Ohio, Michigan, and Wisconsin. Here's the big rub. In Ohio and Michigan, Trump outperformed Romney by around 100,000 votes, in Wisconsin he actually underperformed Romney!

But Obama won Iowa, Wisconsin, Michigan, Indiana, Ohio, Pennsylvania, North Carolina, Florida, and all of Maine. Clinton lost those states and half of Maine. Maybe that accounts for the difference in Electoral college vote.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Votes for Obama in 2012 - 65,915,795
Votes for Clinton so far 2016 - 65,455,765

Difference? < 500,000 nationally

It interesting that Clinton would go on to lose in Ohio, by a lot, Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, and Michigan... yet nearly get the same number of votes as Obama did in 2012, who won the electoral college handily... and beat Trump by 2.7 million votes... and lose the EC.

Obama only won California by 23 pts, Clinton by 29 pts.
Obama only won Massachusetts by 23 pts, Clinton by 27 pts.

Trump underperformed Romney in Blue states. Clinton underperformed Obama in red and purple ones... except the Virginia and Colorado. Just 150,000 votes shy in PA of Obama. Hundreds of thousands in Ohio, Michigan, and Wisconsin. Here's the big rub. In Ohio and Michigan, Trump outperformed Romney by around 100,000 votes, in Wisconsin he actually underperformed Romney!

But Obama won Iowa, Wisconsin, Michigan, Indiana, Ohio, Pennsylvania, North Carolina, Florida, and all of Maine. Clinton lost those states and half of Maine. Maybe that accounts for the difference in Electoral college vote.

How banal!

You are familiar with mathematics and counting, right? Clinton received about as many votes as Obama did in 2012, but managed to lose the Electoral College... while beating Trump by about 2.7 million votes. Trump received under 2 million more votes than Romney.

Obama lost North Carolina as did Clinton. The vote differential in that state was about the same in 2016 as it was in 2012. The difference in Florida was pretty much a mirror (+70k for Obama, -120k for Clinton). Turnout for both candidates in Florida was up.

Looking at all the numbers, Clinton overperformed or drew even in 17 states/districts, mainly blue, though she did better than Obama in NC, GA, FL, NE-2. She saw turnout for her in AZ and TX go up 13 and 17 percent respectively. 23% in Utah, but that is an outlier. Clinton under performed by 8% in NY, else it'd be a 3 million popular vote victory! MI was 12% (to Trump's 8% increase), OH 15% (to Trump's 8% increase), Wisconsin 15% (to Trump's ~0.4% drop!).

Meanwhile Trump had increased or steady turnout in 43 states/districts, which is an impressive statistic seeing he lost the Popular vote by 2.7 million! He lost votes in ID, KS, MS, AK, as well as the VA, MD, NW, WA, CA, MA.

The numbers are all over the place. 10 states (mainly blue, but TX and AZ) saw voter turnout increase for both candidates. 7 states (mix of red and blue) saw turnout drop for both candidates.

The number generally indicate Clinton lost the EC because fewer people voted for her than Obama in MI, OH, and WI by substantial amounts. Trump's gains in MI and OH were decent, but Clinton's losses were overwhelming. Trump gained a substantial number of votes in PA, where as Clinton's turnout there was only 2% lower, so non-voters came out there.

 

[skepticalbip]

But Obama won Iowa, Wisconsin, Michigan, Indiana, Ohio, Pennsylvania, North Carolina, Florida, and all of Maine. Clinton lost those states and half of Maine. Maybe that accounts for the difference in Electoral college vote.

How banal!

You are familiar with mathematics and counting, right? Clinton received about as many votes as Obama did in 2012, but managed to lose the Electoral College... while beating Trump by about 2.7 million votes. Trump received under 2 million more votes than Romney.

Obama lost North Carolina as did Clinton. The vote differential in that state was about the same in 2016 as it was in 2012. The difference in Florida was pretty much a mirror (+70k for Obama, -120k for Clinton). Turnout for both candidates in Florida was up.

Looking at all the numbers, Clinton overperformed or drew even in 17 states/districts, mainly blue, though she did better than Obama in NC, GA, FL, NE-2. She saw turnout for her in AZ and TX go up 13 and 17 percent respectively. 23% in Utah, but that is an outlier. Clinton under performed by 8% in NY, else it'd be a 3 million popular vote victory! MI was 12% (to Trump's 8% increase), OH 15% (to Trump's 8% increase), Wisconsin 15% (to Trump's ~0.4% drop!).

Meanwhile Trump had increased or steady turnout in 43 states/districts, which is an impressive statistic seeing he lost the Popular vote by 2.7 million! He lost votes in ID, KS, MS, AK, as well as the VA, MD, NW, WA, CA, MA.

The numbers are all over the place. 10 states (mainly blue, but TX and AZ) saw voter turnout increase for both candidates. 7 states (mix of red and blue) saw turnout drop for both candidates.

The number generally indicate Clinton lost the EC because fewer people voted for her than Obama in MI, OH, and WI by substantial amounts. Trump's gains in MI and OH were decent, but Clinton's losses were overwhelming. Trump gained a substantial number of votes in PA, where as Clinton's turnout there was only 2% lower, so non-voters came out there.

Shuffling statistics and comparing voter enthusiasm over time and between states is just trying to justify one's state of denial. You could equally argue that the only reason Trump won was that he was taller.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

How banal!

You are familiar with mathematics and counting, right? Clinton received about as many votes as Obama did in 2012, but managed to lose the Electoral College... while beating Trump by about 2.7 million votes. Trump received under 2 million more votes than Romney.

Obama lost North Carolina as did Clinton. The vote differential in that state was about the same in 2016 as it was in 2012. The difference in Florida was pretty much a mirror (+70k for Obama, -120k for Clinton). Turnout for both candidates in Florida was up.

Looking at all the numbers, Clinton overperformed or drew even in 17 states/districts, mainly blue, though she did better than Obama in NC, GA, FL, NE-2. She saw turnout for her in AZ and TX go up 13 and 17 percent respectively. 23% in Utah, but that is an outlier. Clinton under performed by 8% in NY, else it'd be a 3 million popular vote victory! MI was 12% (to Trump's 8% increase), OH 15% (to Trump's 8% increase), Wisconsin 15% (to Trump's ~0.4% drop!).

Meanwhile Trump had increased or steady turnout in 43 states/districts, which is an impressive statistic seeing he lost the Popular vote by 2.7 million! He lost votes in ID, KS, MS, AK, as well as the VA, MD, NW, WA, CA, MA.

The numbers are all over the place. 10 states (mainly blue, but TX and AZ) saw voter turnout increase for both candidates. 7 states (mix of red and blue) saw turnout drop for both candidates.

The number generally indicate Clinton lost the EC because fewer people voted for her than Obama in MI, OH, and WI by substantial amounts. Trump's gains in MI and OH were decent, but Clinton's losses were overwhelming. Trump gained a substantial number of votes in PA, where as Clinton's turnout there was only 2% lower, so non-voters came out there.

Shuffling statistics and comparing voter enthusiasm over time and between states is just trying to justify one's state of denial.

Who is denying anything? Trump won the Electoral College. Clinton won the popular vote. The questions become why the disparity of votes for Clinton in certain areas and not others. It is called an electoral autopsy.

You could equally argue that the only reason Trump won was that he was taller.

Not really, but you can feel free and try.

 

[Elixir]

Clinton under performed by 8% in NY, else it'd be a 3 million popular vote victory!

In deference to skepticalbp, I suggest that would be better worded "Clinton under performed by 8% in NY, else it'd be a 3 million popular vote margin!"
That certainly changes things, doesn't it?

 

[skepticalbip]

Shuffling statistics and comparing voter enthusiasm over time and between states is just trying to justify one's state of denial.

Who is denying anything? Trump won the Electoral College. Clinton won the popular vote. The questions become why the disparity of votes for Clinton in certain areas and not others. It is called an electoral autopsy.
.

It should be obvious that the concerns of people in different areas of the country are different. I find it no surprise that blue collar workers in the "blue wall states" that were once the base of the Democrat party would look at politics differently after seeing their standard of living collapse and being attacked as "angry white male racist deplorables". Then there are the couple hundred thousand blue collar workers in coal mining states (most critically, Pennsylvania) that were promised to lose their jobs if Clinton won and the shop owners and workers in towns that depend on them for business. Also Clinton was not Obama so would appeal to different voters.

Regional concerns vary, all people don't think alike, and most people do not live by and make decisions based on partisan politics.

Less than 30% of registered voters self identify as Democrats and I would guess that most of them would cross vote for a candidate that they thought best addressed their concerns. This means that the Democrats can not unquestionably depend on more than 70% of the voting public for support. A candidate running on "I am a Democrat" or "I am a Republican" will get the candidate about 30% of the vote. Any more or less votes will depend on how well the candidate can convince the voters that their proposals will effect their lives and if the voters like or dislike the proposals.

 

[Elixir]

A candidate running on "I am a Democrat" or "I am a Republican" will get the candidate about 30% of the vote. Any more or less votes will depend on how well the candidate can convince the voters that their proposals will effect their lives and if the voters like or dislike the proposals.

Proposals, or personality? Probably a combination of the two. Trump's artform is to propose/promise anything that anyone suggests they'd like: "We're looking to that. We're looking into a lot of things." he said, in response to a half wit woman complaining about TSA screeners wearing hijabs...

 

[skepticalbip]

A candidate running on "I am a Democrat" or "I am a Republican" will get the candidate about 30% of the vote. Any more or less votes will depend on how well the candidate can convince the voters that their proposals will effect their lives and if the voters like or dislike the proposals.

Proposals, or personality? Probably a combination of the two. ..

Agreed.... personality would address how effectively the candidate can convince the voters to like the proposals.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Who is denying anything? Trump won the Electoral College. Clinton won the popular vote. The questions become why the disparity of votes for Clinton in certain areas and not others. It is called an electoral autopsy.
.

It should be obvious that the concerns of people in different areas of the country are different. I find it no surprise that blue collar workers in the "blue wall states" that were once the base of the Democrat party would look at politics differently after seeing their standard of living collapse and being attacked as "angry white male racist deplorables". Then there are the couple hundred thousand blue collar workers in coal mining states (most critically, Pennsylvania) that were promised to lose their jobs if Clinton won and the shop owners and workers in towns that depend on them for business. Also Clinton was not Obama so would appeal to different voters.

It is cute you think you have made a point. The fact remains, other than Ohio, turnout drop for Clinton wasn't seen as 1 to 1 for Trump in WI, MI, and PA.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

Who is denying anything? Trump won the Electoral College. Clinton won the popular vote. The questions become why the disparity of votes for Clinton in certain areas and not others. It is called an electoral autopsy.
.

It should be obvious that the concerns of people in different areas of the country are different. I find it no surprise that blue collar workers in the "blue wall states" that were once the base of the Democrat party would look at politics differently after seeing their standard of living collapse and being attacked as "angry white male racist deplorables". Then there are the couple hundred thousand blue collar workers in coal mining states (most critically, Pennsylvania) that were promised to lose their jobs if Clinton won and the shop owners and workers in towns that depend on them for business. Also Clinton was not Obama so would appeal to different voters.

Regional concerns vary, all people don't think alike, and most people do not live by and make decisions based on partisan politics.

Less than 30% of registered voters self identify as Democrats and I would guess that most of them would cross vote for a candidate that they thought best addressed their concerns. This means that the Democrats can not unquestionably depend on more than 70% of the voting public for support. A candidate running on "I am a Democrat" or "I am a Republican" will get the candidate about 30% of the vote. Any more or less votes will depend on how well the candidate can convince the voters that their proposals will effect their lives and if the voters like or dislike the proposals.

Not exactly, no. These things do not represent a complete picture of the candidates and even if they did, it's not actual policy that matters but instead perceived policy. And to that point, misinformation played a hyuuuge role in vote counts this election.

 

[skepticalbip]

It should be obvious that the concerns of people in different areas of the country are different. I find it no surprise that blue collar workers in the "blue wall states" that were once the base of the Democrat party would look at politics differently after seeing their standard of living collapse and being attacked as "angry white male racist deplorables". Then there are the couple hundred thousand blue collar workers in coal mining states (most critically, Pennsylvania) that were promised to lose their jobs if Clinton won and the shop owners and workers in towns that depend on them for business. Also Clinton was not Obama so would appeal to different voters.

It is cute you think you have made a point. The fact remains, other than Ohio, turnout drop for Clinton wasn't seen as 1 to 1 for Trump in WI, MI, and PA.

Why the fuck would you expect a 1 to 1 change? You can't seem to be able to get your brain out of thinking in terms of partisan politics. Something that the voters of PA think are damned important, the voters in MI may not give a shit about.

Your "analysis" makes a dumb-ass assumption that conditions everywhere remain constant, that voter concerns remain unchanging. that voter concerns are the same in every region, that any Dem. (or Repub.) candidate is interchangeable with another Dem. (or Repub.) without effecting voter choice, etc.

Reality is that none of those remain constants. This election had different candidates than four years earlier (with different appeal or repulsion), different voter concerns than four years earlier in each area, etc.

 

[fromderinside]

OK as of 12/7/16 Clinton leads trump by 2.85 million votes. Could go to three million. Sad.

 

[Elixir]

OK as of 12/7/16 Clinton leads trump by 2.85 million votes. Could go to three million. Sad.

At what point can it be called a landslide?

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

It is cute you think you have made a point. The fact remains, other than Ohio, turnout drop for Clinton wasn't seen as 1 to 1 for Trump in WI, MI, and PA.

Why the fuck would you expect a 1 to 1 change?

Because it would imply Trump was viewed as the better candidate.

You can't seem to be able to get your brain out of thinking in terms of partisan politics.

That's rich!

Something that the voters of PA think are damned important, the voters in MI may not give a shit about.

Wow, no kidding.

Your "analysis" makes a dumb-ass assumption that conditions everywhere remain constant, that voter concerns remain unchanging.

I really haven't made much of an analysis. More just digging up data, which apparently offends you somehow.

...that voter concerns are the same in every region, that any Dem. (or Repub.) candidate is interchangeable with another Dem. (or Repub.) without effecting voter choice, etc.

It is interesting that Clinton support was up in Florida and Texas, steady in California, down in Wisconsin and New York (and other states). Wisconsin (and six other states) is particularly interesting because support for both candidates was down. Turnout for both was up in 10 states.

Reality is that none of those remain constants. This election had different candidates than four years earlier (with different appeal or repulsion), different voter concerns than four years earlier in each area, etc.

There weren't many actual concerns in 2016 regarding actual policy, other than the US lost jobs overseas in the 80s and 90s and it had to stop.

- - - Updated - - -

OK as of 12/7/16 Clinton leads trump by 2.85 million votes. Could go to three million. Sad.

At what point can it be called a landslide?

By Trump standards, it is pretty much the largest popular vote victory ever.

 

[skepticalbip]

Why the fuck would you expect a 1 to 1 change?

Because it would imply Trump was viewed as the better candidate.

Apparently you aren't talking about a corresponding change in vote between states so what the hell are you talking about with your "1 to 1 change"?

It is interesting that Clinton support was up in Florida and Texas, steady in California, down in Wisconsin and New York (and other states). Wisconsin (and six other states) is particularly interesting because support for both candidates was down. Turnout for both was up in 10 states.

Why does this surprise you? As I said and you agreed, people in different states have different interests and concerns.