Drudge Retort: The Other Side of the News
Thursday, November 24, 2016

Hillary Clinton's national popular-vote lead over Donald Trump now exceeds 2 million votes, according to an ongoing tally by the Cook Political Report's David Wasserman. Clinton's vote total is 64,223,986 (48.1% of the vote), while Trump's is 62,206,395 (46.6%) - a difference of 2,017,591 votes. To put that popular-vote margin into perspective, Al Gore's popular-vote lead over George W. Bush in 2000 -- when Bush won the Electoral College -- was 547,000 votes. Also noteworthy: Clinton's 64-plus million votes is nearing in on the 65.9 million Barack Obama won in 2012.

Advertisement

Advertisement

Liberal Blog Advertising Network

More

Comments

Admin's note: Participants in this discussion must follow the site's moderation policy. Profanity will be filtered. Abusive conduct is not allowed.

I didn't vote for Orange Hitler. If he ends up being a useful president, good. But I don't see that happening, or at least not happening very much.

#1 | Posted by PinchALoaf at 2016-11-23 08:41 PM | Reply | Funny: 1

Holy moly she got a lot of votes.

#2 | Posted by BruceBanner at 2016-11-23 08:44 PM | Reply | Funny: 1

#2 - and it will continue to grow for a while longer.
Such a travesty.

#3 | Posted by YAV at 2016-11-23 09:30 PM | Reply | Funny: 1 | Newsworthy 1

I am doubting the idea that this last election was not stolen. Millions of other Americans are too, our numbers are growing rapidly. We may have a crisis looming, Donald Trump was probably not elected President. We need Hillary Clinton to demand recounts, investigations, etc. Don't even tell me that we need to accept the apparent results for the welfare of the nation, Iraq says you're full of crap. It's not better to accept an illigitimate President.

#4 | Posted by danni at 2016-11-23 09:35 PM | Reply

And, if the shoe were on the other foot, do any of you think REpublicans would accept an illigitimate President? Take a gander at NC, where the Gov. is trying to overturn the will of the people in a blatant attempt to steal an election obviously won by his opponents.

#5 | Posted by danni at 2016-11-23 09:37 PM | Reply

And, if the shoe were on the other foot, do any of you think REpublicans would accept an illigitimate President? - Danni

I would accept the result of the system of laws we have now. If you want to change them, then lets change them, until then quit the complaining its divisive and the result of this sort of divisiveness isn't good.

Which is why Hillary was so adamant about it.

#6 | Posted by AndreaMackris at 2016-11-23 09:46 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

I remember a week or so before the election Nate Silver had an article discussing the concept that one candidate would win the popular vote but lose the Electoral College.

I think he put it as 85% chance it could happen to Trump but only 0.5% chance it could happen to Clinton.

#7 | Posted by REDIAL at 2016-11-23 09:50 PM | Reply

And, if the shoe were on the other foot, do any of you think REpublicans would accept an illigitimate President?

Heck no. They didn't accept a legitimately elected Democrat President the last two times.

#8 | Posted by YAV at 2016-11-23 09:56 PM | Reply

To bad suckers she lost.

Keep up the crying.

That's the way the ball bounces.

Try again next time. [...]

#9 | Posted by rightwingdon at 2016-11-23 10:21 PM | Reply | Funny: 1

I would accept the result of the system of laws we have now. If you want to change them, then lets change them, until then quit the complaining its divisive and the result of this sort of divisiveness isn't good.

#6 | POSTED BY ANDREAMACKRIS

Divisiveness? That's funny. Leading up to election day, before 1 vote was even cast, Republicans were already talking about impeaching President Hillary. And you would've been cheerleading the effort.

#10 | Posted by PinchALoaf at 2016-11-23 10:29 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 3

Advertisement

Advertisement

"before 1 vote was even cast, Republicans were already talking about impeaching President Hillary."

Jason Chaffetz said he had "two years" worth of investigations upcoming on HRC. Will he still hold these hearings? Of course not. Proving it was all a political charade.

Meanwhile, Chaffetz will attend to Trump's many questionable dealings by having hearings on the 12th.

Of Never, that is....

Which, coincidentally, is the day slated for Trump to release his tax returns.

#11 | Posted by Danforth at 2016-11-23 10:37 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Walking Dead...

#12 | Posted by Greatamerican at 2016-11-24 02:27 AM | Reply

A Republican President
Republican Vice President
Republican control of the Senate
Republican control of the House
Republican control of 31 state houses
A majority of Republican governors 36 of 50
Republican control of a majority of county governments
Republican control of a majority of city governments

Now THAT is "Hope and Change."

#13 | Posted by Greatamerican at 2016-11-24 02:36 AM | Reply

Hillary's Lead Grows to 2 Million

This, and $5 can get her a cup of coffee at Starbucks as a private citizen.

#14 | Posted by GOnoles92 at 2016-11-24 09:52 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Keep up the crying.

#9 | POSTED BY RIGHTWINGDON

Actually counting the votes is crying? Huh?

Still trying to understand this newly powerful RW. Just can't seem to.

#15 | Posted by BruceBanner at 2016-11-24 09:52 AM | Reply

Hillary's Lead Grows to 2 Million

What was the frequent ReTort to Bernie Sanders supporters who alleged that the superdelegate system was unfair to Bernie?

Oh yeah: "Everyone knew the rules, and what was required to win, going into the campaign."

#16 | Posted by GOnoles92 at 2016-11-24 09:56 AM | Reply

Don't be afraid of actually counting the votes boys.

I get it. You thought mandate was spelled as two words.

#17 | Posted by BruceBanner at 2016-11-24 10:01 AM | Reply

She's the People's Princess. Maybe Elton John will change the words to Candle in the WInd.

#18 | Posted by SheepleSchism at 2016-11-24 10:02 AM | Reply

and it will continue to grow for a while longer. Such a travesty.

Yes it is. Our system allows a president to be elected who is the clear second choice of the voters. How can anyone have faith in such a system? The Electoral College should be abolished.

Trump will become president with the least legitimacy of any in our lifetime. He is stupid enough to act like he won in a landslide, so I expect these to be rough political times.

#19 | Posted by rcade at 2016-11-24 10:08 AM | Reply

And, if the shoe were on the other foot, do any of you think REpublicans would accept an illigitimate President? Take a gander at NC, where the Gov. is trying to overturn the will of the people in a blatant attempt to steal an election obviously won by his opponents.

#5 | POSTED BY DANNI AT 2016-11-23 09:37 PM | REPLY

I would accept it and accept her as my president just as I stated immediately prior to the election. I don't have to agree with everything she does but for me to not wish a president success is flat out crazy.

I didn't vote for either but Trump is our president and I hope he is successful in a way that can bring the nation together rather than tearing us apart even more.

#20 | Posted by lfthndthrds at 2016-11-24 10:22 AM | Reply

The Electoral College should be abolished.

Had the roles been reversed you wouldn't be saying that.

#21 | Posted by JeffJ at 2016-11-24 10:23 AM | Reply

Well, if nothing else this offers validity to the polls which were lambasted immediately after the election.

#22 | Posted by JeffJ at 2016-11-24 10:24 AM | Reply

Beyond Hillary losing the popular vote, this must be taken into account.

A Republican President
Republican Vice President
Republican control of the Senate
Republican control of the House
Republican control of 31 state houses
A majority of Republican governors 36 of 50
Republican control of a majority of county governments
Republican control of a majority of city governments

Now THAT is "Hope and Change."

#13 | POSTED BY GREATAMERICAN AT 2016-11-24 02:36 AM | FLAG:

It says theres something inherently wrong with the Democrat party. we can cry, bitch and moan all we want but the truth is right there. Change must come or the DNC must go.

#23 | Posted by lfthndthrds at 2016-11-24 10:28 AM | Reply

I would accept the result of the system of laws we have now. -- #6 | Posted by AndreaMackris

Rare point of agreement. Election fraud needs to be investigated.

#24 | Posted by Phoenix at 2016-11-24 10:28 AM | Reply

"The Electoral College should be abolished."

It's never going to happen, and here's why:

Congress is run via a bastardized version of Robert's Rules of Order. Under RRO, certain votes require supermajorities, others majorities, and others, simply the majority in the room. Abolishing the EC would force at least 5 states (the difference between 50% and 60%) and more like 9 states (67%) to voluntarily cede power they currently have. Ain't gonna happen.

There's also a very good reason it shouldn't go away: Remember Florida in 2000? Well, a close national election would do two very bad things:

1) It would create 10,000 Floridas. If victory could be found via 100 votes here or there, lawsuits would be popping up in every podunk burg in the country.
2) It would encourage actual voter fraud. Think about it: as it stands, in-person vote fraud has waaaaay too much risk for waaaaay too little return. What does it matter if 1,000 fraudulent votes happen in Republican Kansas, or Democratic California? At this point, vote fraud holds no gain for residents of either state. Change to a popular vote, and all bets are off.

#25 | Posted by Danforth at 2016-11-24 10:35 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Rcade, if you abolished the electoral you take the voice of the middle of the country away what do you think happens when the middle isn't happy? We are the ones that are willing to rise up and have the means to do so you do realize that? California and New York shouldn't dictate all policies nation wide they can hardly govern themselves.

#26 | Posted by PinkyanTheBrain at 2016-11-24 10:35 AM | Reply | Funny: 1

Had the roles been reversed you wouldn't be saying that.

You should not project unto others your own lack of integrity. I think the Electoral College is a travesty regardless of who it benefits.

When we vote in our states, it is one person, one vote. Each of us has equal say.

But when we vote as a nation, it issn't. If you live around more cows than people, you have more power. A voter in Wyoming has 3.6 times as much voting power as a voter in California, because each state gets two electoral votes just for being a state.

If that is necessary to balance out rural and urban interests, why aren't we doing it in states? Florida has a lot of counties full of cows. Are they at an unfair disadvantage because Miami and Orlando have a lot of people and fewer cows? Of course not. We accept that one person, one vote, is the rule.

Republicans like you spent the last year calling superdelegates in the Democratic primary an anti-democratic system. The Electoral College is even more anti-democratic.

#27 | Posted by rcade at 2016-11-24 10:35 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Congress is run via a bastardized version of Robert's Rules of Order. Under RRO, certain votes require supermajorities, others majorities, and others, simply the majority in the room. Abolishing the EC would force at least 5 states (the difference between 50% and 60%) and more like 9 states (67%) to voluntarily cede power they currently have. Ain't gonna happen.

There's also a very good reason it shouldn't go away: Remember Florida in 2000? Well, a close national election would do two very bad things:

1) It would create 10,000 Floridas. If victory could be found via 100 votes here or there, lawsuits would be popping up in every podunk burg in the country.
2) It would encourage actual voter fraud. Think about it: as it stands, in-person vote fraud has waaaaay too much risk for waaaaay too little return. What does it matter if 1,000 fraudulent votes happen in Republican Kansas, or Democratic California? At this point, vote fraud holds no gain for residents of either state. Change to a popular vote, and all bets are off.

Posted by Danforth at 2016-11-24 10:35 AM | Reply

Awwwwwwwwwww there he i with RRO. I always got a special tingle when you talked about that. I miss those times.

#28 | Posted by LauraMohr at 2016-11-24 10:38 AM | Reply

That said if they prove actually fraud investigate. Till then sorry guys you got what you got. They were all horrible choices to being with.

#29 | Posted by PinkyanTheBrain at 2016-11-24 10:38 AM | Reply

We are the ones that are willing to rise up and have the means to do so you do realize that?

You need to stop watching Red Dawn so often. The idea there will be a bumpkin revolution because Americans didn't like losing an election is a fantasy.

Americans have been giving up our freedoms for 15 years without a fight. All it takes is to scare us and we throw civil liberties and controls on government action out the window.

We just elected a strongman loving autocrat who regularly attacked the freedom of the press -- one of the only institutions that can serve as a check on a despotic government.

This is not a country of people who fight for freedom at cost of our lives. We watch our TV shows and enjoy our cheap consumer goods and obsessively fidget with our phones. If a war required a draft we wouldn't fight it.

You shouldn't get to have more power in choosing a president because you live around cows. You have even less justification to be given more power because you might commit treason against the government if you don't like losing an election.

#30 | Posted by rcade at 2016-11-24 10:43 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Remember Florida in 2000? Well, a close national election would do two very bad things ...

Statistically, the chance of a razor-thin national vote is far less than one that is close enough in a single state to decide the Electoral College.

#31 | Posted by rcade at 2016-11-24 10:44 AM | Reply

Your honestly saying the 1.5% is a big number? Grand scheme and all that nothing. I'll tell you what I told my friend the day before the election. He noticed all the Hillary crowd was acting like they had won already. I told him that was a huge mistake on their part because it makes people that don't want her vote and ones that do feel safe to stay home. I feel if she hadn't done that could have been a landslide.

#32 | Posted by PinkyanTheBrain at 2016-11-24 10:47 AM | Reply

I didn't know any Hillary voters acting like the election was in the bag. We knew the polls were close and a lot of undecideds were still out there.

#33 | Posted by rcade at 2016-11-24 10:49 AM | Reply

#27

We are not a pure Democracy and the country wasn't set up to be one. This country has a system of checks and balances in place to prevent tyranny of the majority. The electoral college is one of those checks. As it turns out, most of the time the candidate who wins the popular vote also wins the electoral vote.

#34 | Posted by JeffJ at 2016-11-24 10:51 AM | Reply

You take away a lot of voices with your opinion. Red Dawn aside (i think I was like 10 when that came out) the working class lives in these states so your telling me take away their votes it they shouldn't have a say.

#35 | Posted by PinkyanTheBrain at 2016-11-24 10:54 AM | Reply

Just look at her plane stunt, Trump was still out working she was playing around picking out the new curtains. So ya the average person saw that and responded.

#36 | Posted by PinkyanTheBrain at 2016-11-24 10:59 AM | Reply

... your telling me take away their votes it they shouldn't have a say.

No, I'm telling you each person should have equal say.

You're the one taking away the power of some votes based on an absurd 18th century standard of cow proximity.

#37 | Posted by rcade at 2016-11-24 11:04 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

This country has a system of checks and balances in place to prevent tyranny of the majority.

Getting less votes than someone else is not the "tyranny of the majority."

That concept is about the Bill of Rights protecting the civil liberties of minorities through the Supreme Court's interpretation of the Constitution, not letting one group have more voting power than another.

It is the height of ridiculousness to claim that a minority of voters should have more power in elections because their states have fewer people in them.

As it turns out, most of the time the candidate who wins the popular vote also wins the electoral vote.

Not good enough. Two out of the last five elections have given us a second-choice president.

#38 | Posted by rcade at 2016-11-24 11:08 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

Sour grapes makes for bitter whine.

#39 | Posted by phesterOBoyle at 2016-11-24 11:12 AM | Reply

#30 | POSTED BY RCADE

Hillary was for a NoFly zone in Syria, which would have lead to war.

You have no basis or fact of anything Trump ever said that would lead to such a conclusion.

It is the height of ridiculousness to claim that a minority of voters should have more power in elections because their states have fewer people in them.

It would only be matched by the ridiculousness of two or three states have more power than the other 48 states. The system we have is pretty good, IMO. If we got rid of the 17th amendment, I feel the country would be in much better shape.

Not good enough. Two out of the last five elections have given us a second-choice president.
#38 | POSTED BY RCADE

The race would be run differently by all parties involved, the conclusion as any rational person would tell you would be unknown. If you don't like the system then change it ... whining about it now is ridiculous, pointless, and divisive.

Finally, IMO California would be required to allow Republican candidates to run for Senate and the House on the day of the election. California is a Republican suppression state.

#40 | Posted by AndreaMackris at 2016-11-24 11:24 AM | Reply

You need to stop watching Red Dawn so often...

This is not a country of people who fight for freedom at cost of our lives. We watch our TV shows and enjoy our cheap consumer goods and obsessively fidget with our phones. If a war required a draft we wouldn't fight it.

You shouldn't get to have more power in choosing a president because you live around cows.

www.youtube.com

#41 | Posted by PinchALoaf at 2016-11-24 11:27 AM | Reply

Here is a perfect illustration of how games are played differently when the rules are different.
pbs.twimg.com

#42 | Posted by AndreaMackris at 2016-11-24 11:28 AM | Reply

It would only be matched by the ridiculousness of two or three states have more power than the other 48 states.

There's nothing ridiculous about a state having more voting power because it has more voters.

In Florida statewide votes, the city I live in has less power than Miami because Miami has far more people. Is this bad? Should we change our voting system so my vote has four times as much power as a voter in Miami?

The race would be run differently by all parties involved ...

Why are you afraid of that? Do you think Republicans can't win a popular vote any more?

#43 | Posted by rcade at 2016-11-24 11:30 AM | Reply

Why are you afraid of that? Do you think Republicans can't win a popular vote any more?

#43 | POSTED BY RCADE

She didn't say she was afraid of that. Her point was that under different rules the campaigns would have not only campaigned differently but would have allocated their campaign resources differently. You can't just look at this outcome and proclaim that Hillary actually won when it's impossible to know that if both campaigns had been run differently based upon a different set of rules.

#44 | Posted by JeffJ at 2016-11-24 11:33 AM | Reply

It's not in flyover country's best interest for the coasts to have even more say than they do now in who leads. The coasts don't just have more people crammed in them either, most of the wealth, media, and spokesmanship that gets injected into the campaign is there as well. They have plenty of power already. Danforth laid out a better case in his post, the E.C. isn't going anywhere.

#45 | Posted by LIVE_OR_DIE at 2016-11-24 11:33 AM | Reply

It would only be matched by the ridiculousness of two or three states have more power than the other 48 states.

Those two or three states have the vast majority of the population in them.

Why should Wyoming have more electoral votes per person than California or New Your or Texas? Because no one lives there? Because it doesn't provide economically for the country?

All states receive equal representation in the Senate. That should be good enough.

If Wyoming or Nebraska or Montana want more say in elections they should figure out how to increase their state's population and economic output.

#46 | Posted by ClownShack at 2016-11-24 11:36 AM | Reply

You can't just look at this outcome and proclaim that Hillary actually won ...

It is a fact that she won the popular vote. That doesn't stop being a fact no matter how much you dance around it.

#47 | Posted by rcade at 2016-11-24 11:39 AM | Reply

Simply put, each candidate appeared to have a different game plan. Apparently Hillary was after the popular vote whereas, noting where Trump campaigned, it is obvious that he purposely went for the electoral vote. Interesting that Hillary's side for the longest time assumed she had the electoral vote locked up - big mistake.

#48 | Posted by MSgt at 2016-11-24 11:41 AM | Reply

They have plenty of power already.

That's an incredible argument for giving a Wyoming resident 3.6 times more power to pick a president than a California resident.

Why do you hate democracy? The idea each of our votes should count equally is the bedrock of any system in which a government requires the consent of the governed.

When you play games because one group has "plenty of power already" and should thus be weakened, it makes a mockery of the entire system.

#50 | Posted by rcade at 2016-11-24 11:42 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

Apparently Hillary was after the popular vote ...

Nonsense. She didn't campaign in California or New York. She campaigned to win electoral votes just like every other candidate of the past and visited places like Florida and Pennsylvania over and over. Stick to reality.

#51 | Posted by rcade at 2016-11-24 11:44 AM | Reply

Why do you hate democracy?
#50 | POSTED BY RCADE AT 2016-11-24 11:42 AM

Why do you hate America?

#52 | Posted by LIVE_OR_DIE at 2016-11-24 11:47 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

It is a fact that she won the popular vote. That doesn't stop being a fact no matter how much you dance around it.

#47 | POSTED BY RCADE

Under different rules she might not have won the popular vote. You are engaging in speculation. No matter how much you dance around it the fact can't be denied that the campaigns would have been run differently had the rules been different.

#53 | Posted by JeffJ at 2016-11-24 11:49 AM | Reply

If I buy a house in an HOA community and fill it with 20 family members they all dont get a vote at HOA meetings. To do so would allow the big family homes to come together and dominate policy.

So what if she wins the popular vote? California and NY depend on other states as much as those states depend on them.

Unites States of America...

Not:

Group of States where most populus determine policy of America..

#54 | Posted by aescal at 2016-11-24 11:52 AM | Reply

You are engaging in speculation.

There is no part of "Hillary won the popular vote" that is speculation.

Under different rules she might not have won the popular vote.

No kidding. That doesn't change the fact that she won the popular vote. You can't use a hypothetical to alter reality.

Her popular vote win by over two million votes means that nationally Trump was second choice. People can put as much or as little importance on that fact as they choose.

#55 | Posted by rcade at 2016-11-24 12:04 PM | Reply

What would an accurate electoral map look like?

#56 | Posted by eberly at 2016-11-24 12:06 PM | Reply

If I buy a house in an HOA community and fill it with 20 family members they all dont get a vote at HOA meetings. To do so would allow the big family homes to come together and dominate policy.

If 20 people move into your house and they vote for governor, they have the voting power of 20 people.

If 20 people move into your house and vote for president, their voting power is equal to 30 people or 10 people, depending on how many cows they live around.

Why is cow proximity so important?

State borders are arbitrary in a country with total freedom of movement. The number of people in Wyoming or California is based on the number of people who choose to live in Wyoming or California.

I shouldn't have less voting power to pick a president because a lot of people live in Florida. We already give each state enough disproportionate power by giving each one two senators. People in the sticks shouldn't get more power to decide the president.

Our system is rewarding places because they suck at keeping residents. I'm sorry Junior doesn't want to stay on the farm. Maybe he likes the company of people better than cows.

#57 | Posted by rcade at 2016-11-24 12:10 PM | Reply

What would an accurate electoral map look like?

If "accurate" means each state's size is based on population, here's the 2016 electoral map:

static1.businessinsider.com

#58 | Posted by rcade at 2016-11-24 12:13 PM | Reply

Why didn't HRC try to win the Electoral College? Was John Podesta too busy chasing UFOs, "spirit cooking," and ordering Pizza to brush up on his US civics?

It is still surprising that HRC didn't visit Wisconsin since the DNC convention...no wonder Trump won there.

#59 | Posted by GOnoles92 at 2016-11-24 12:15 PM | Reply

Funny thing is. Had Donald Trump won the popular vote and lost the electoral vote. He would have freaked out. So would have his supporters. But. Trump won the electoral vote. So. Popular vote be damned.

#60 | Posted by ClownShack at 2016-11-24 12:20 PM | Reply

Why didn't HRC try to win the Electoral College?

Stop trolling. It's getting old. You know she tried to win the Electoral College.

#61 | Posted by rcade at 2016-11-24 12:21 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 6

State lines are not arbitrary. If you really believe so get a FL CCW and try to use it in NY. Buy some MM in CO and take it to Utah.

Again... USA

What does the US stand for?

#62 | Posted by aescal at 2016-11-24 12:25 PM | Reply

If you really believe so get a FL CCW and try to use it in NY. Buy some MM in CO and take it to Utah.

The existence of state laws doesn't make the lines between states any less arbitrary. There's nothing magical about the Wyoming border that makes its inhabitants more worthy of picking a president.

When Colorado voted for medical marijuana, each Coloradan's vote had equal power. Big cities had more voters than small cities, so they had more say. Was something wrong with that?

#63 | Posted by rcade at 2016-11-24 12:31 PM | Reply

And this is only counting those that chose to vote... not including the one's that chose to not vote... and the Bernie bots that voted for the alternative.... for whom the reality of their stupid has come to bite them in their collective butts.

I told ya pig brains you are outnumbered.

Good luck with that wall thingie.... your boy's going down... 10 feet deeper.

Oh and please do not give me the boohoos about those po' blue collar workers she didn't reach... Every time I want to see just how much the clowns give a crap about the poor and disenfranchised I'll watch a video on the aftermath of Katrina where the compassionate conservatron clown pundits were all about why the government is not responsible for plight of the poor... and the pig brains posting in this forum with their litany of how they were responsible for their own problems... You're doin' a heckauva jab brownnosers

BTW... you've run out of guilt trips to lay on us as you did with the last frat boy business clown you installed in office.

Lock him up... lock him up.... lock him up.

#64 | Posted by RightisTrite at 2016-11-24 12:48 PM | Reply

Again... USA
What does the US stand for?
#62 | POSTED BY AESCAL AT 2016-11-24 12:25 PM

Should be changed to United Peasant States Under California and New York.

#65 | Posted by LIVE_OR_DIE at 2016-11-24 12:52 PM | Reply

No kidding. That doesn't change the fact that she won the popular vote. You can't use a hypothetical to alter reality.
Her popular vote win by over two million votes means that nationally Trump was second choice. People can put as much or as little importance on that fact as they choose - Rcade

It's not whether you or I or make it important. The system does.

It's clear your only point at this juncture is divisiveness.

#66 | Posted by AndreaMackris at 2016-11-24 12:52 PM | Reply

It's clear your only point at this juncture is divisiveness.

Divisiveness is the foundation of the Republican Party.

It's the only way to convince lower and middle class workers to vote against their own best interests.

#67 | Posted by ClownShack at 2016-11-24 12:58 PM | Reply

Should be changed to United Peasant States Under California and New York.

Considering how much the Peasant States mooch off of California and New York.

Perhaps it should be.

#68 | Posted by ClownShack at 2016-11-24 01:01 PM | Reply

Without the costal states. The fly over states would be worth little more than Somalia.

Thankfully for Americans. The United States of America has a few States dragging the rest of this deplorable nation along with us.

#69 | Posted by ClownShack at 2016-11-24 01:04 PM | Reply

It's clear your only point at this juncture is divisiveness.

For a Trump voter to lament divisiveness is completely ------ hilarious.

#70 | Posted by rcade at 2016-11-24 01:13 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

If Wyoming or Nebraska or Montana want more say in elections they should figure out how to increase their state's population and economic output.

While those 3 are all low on economic output Florida, Ohio, Pennsylvania and North Carolina the primary swing states that one could argue decide the election are all in the top 8 for economic output. So by your increase economic output argument the electoral college is doing it's job.

#71 | Posted by TaoWarrior at 2016-11-24 01:13 PM | Reply

For a Trump voter to lament divisiveness is completely ------ hilarious.

Andreà is pretty hilarious.

Must be what convinced Nulli to become a full blown Trumpaholic.

Well. That and his disdain for Mexicans.

#72 | Posted by ClownShack at 2016-11-24 01:31 PM | Reply

Under different rules she might not have won the popular vote.

What would those rules be?

The one where you don't count them?

#73 | Posted by ClownShack at 2016-11-24 01:35 PM | Reply | Funny: 1

Without the costal states. The fly over states would be worth little more than Somalia.
---

Retarded comparison, but you can thank our pols for the creation of the "Rust Belt." Meanwhile, if Democraps think doubling down on ignoring the voters Hillary lost in those states, some of whom helped put Obama in the White House, they're in for a bumpy ride.

#74 | Posted by LIVE_OR_DIE at 2016-11-24 01:58 PM | Reply

... you can thank our pols for the creation of the "Rust Belt."

Politicians didn't make manufacturing jobs go away due to automation, the primary contributor to the economic woes of that region.

#75 | Posted by rcade at 2016-11-24 02:06 PM | Reply

The counting done in this article is wrong Clinton does NOT have a 2 million vote lead, here is the latest voting as reported by Associated Press:

Associated Press reports:

Trump: 290 Electoral Votes 61,201,031 popular votes (47.01%)
Hillary: 232 Electoral Votes 62,523,126 popular votes (48.03%)

Hillary received 1,322,095 more votes than Trump as of 11-23-16 12:02PM EST.

www.wral.com

#76 | Posted by tomalock at 2016-11-24 02:17 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

The winner of the popular vote is the answer to a trivia question, nothing more. It's irrelevant to electing the president. It just gives the frothing extreme left something to whine about.

#77 | Posted by willowby at 2016-11-24 02:23 PM | Reply

Retarded comparison,

It's a very apt comparison. The majority of States are little more than liquor store and gun shops. The republicans have done a great job de-educating the populous in those states. And now they breed ignorance and hate.

Meanwhile, if Democraps think doubling down on ignoring the voters Hillary lost in those states, some of whom helped put Obama in the White House, they're in for a bumpy ride.

I was incredibly vocal about my objections to Hillary. She never had a chance of winning any of the states in the rust belt. (Contrary to democrats who thought pointing that out was being racist to the voters there. (Which. In and of itself is a very racist comment.)) She also lost a bunch of states which generally swing left. Again. There are several of reasons for this.

In the end. She did manage to win the popular vote. But. That doesn't seem to mean anything. Which. Really is a big -- to voters.

#78 | Posted by ClownShack at 2016-11-24 02:26 PM | Reply

"What would an accurate electoral map look like?"

images.search.yahoo.com

#79 | Posted by Danforth at 2016-11-24 03:24 PM | Reply

Dut the apoplexy of many here I am providing the remedy:

The Constitution provides that an amendment may be proposed either by the Congress with a two-thirds majority vote in both the House of Representatives and the Senate or by a constitutional convention called for by two-thirds of the State legislatures.

Constitutional Amendment Process | National Archives
www.archives.gov

#80 | Posted by MSgt at 2016-11-24 03:49 PM | Reply

Dut = Due [the French 75s have obviously kicked in].

#81 | Posted by MSgt at 2016-11-24 03:51 PM | Reply

Still trying to understand this newly powerful RW. Just can't seem to.

#15 | Posted by BruceBanner

They make sense once you realize that some people get off on cruelty.

That explains their attitude toward the poor, minorities, gays, the sick, public schools, the environment, and anyone not like themselves.

#82 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2016-11-24 04:01 PM | Reply

Politicians didn't make manufacturing jobs go away due to automation, the primary contributor to the economic woes of that region.
#75 | POSTED BY RCADE AT 2016-11-24 02:06 PM

Remind yourself of that next time you whine about the other side rewarding companies for shipping jobs overseas.

#83 | Posted by LIVE_OR_DIE at 2016-11-24 04:23 PM | Reply

"apt comparison"

Failed state!
admissions.uwyo.edu

Pirates!
cdn.onlyinyourstate.com

Anarchy!
cdn1.matadornetwork.com

Third world wasteland!
www.selectregistry.com

(lol)

#84 | Posted by LIVE_OR_DIE at 2016-11-24 04:35 PM | Reply

If the presidency was won by the popular vote than Trump would have campaigned differently and still crushed her and those in the left can't prove that wouldn't have happened. Simple

#85 | Posted by fishpaw at 2016-11-24 08:45 PM | Reply

Damn, but the Alt {all lefties} left going Bat S*** Crazy makes me smile - immensely! :)

#86 | Posted by MSgt at 2016-11-24 09:08 PM | Reply

You shouldn't get to have more power in choosing a president because you live around cows.
#30 | Posted by rcade

If you are so opposed to the design of the constitution, you're fortunate that there is a method written into it that allows for it to be changed. It's almost certainly not going to be a ratified amendment, but you're welcome to work your way towards it. There is nothing different now about the reason behind the set-up of the electoral college. The founders didn't want the low population states to be ignored in the election of the president.

Why do you hate democracy? The idea each of our votes should count equally is the bedrock of any system in which a government requires the consent of the governed.
#50 | Posted by rcade

Because we love our country and want to see it survive and prosper. Can you point to any successful pure democracy? Let's go ahead and give the governed, the States, each have their own vote, as you recommend. 50 state votes for President? Ties go to the House of Representatives?

#87 | Posted by avigdore at 2016-11-24 09:13 PM | Reply

What would those rules be?
The one where you don't count them?

#73 | POSTED BY CLOWNSHACK

Popular vote, the one RCade is proposing, are you incapable of understanding the discussion?

Andreà is pretty hilarious.
Well. That and his disdain for Mexicans.
#72 | POSTED BY CLOWNSHACK

I am, do you believe divisiveness is only onsided? if so then you are the funny one.

Why do you believe I don't like Mexicans?

I love Mexicians, muc like I love the French, I have sailed to, Isla de Holbox it is wonderful place, love their culture, food, music.

Have you been to Mexico? Or is your only experience with "Mexicans" is in the US......

#88 | Posted by AndreaMackris at 2016-11-24 09:42 PM | Reply

#85 | POSTED BY FISHPAW

True, but you are racist, mysoginist to think she couldn't win...

Frontpage be damned, like its a phreakin FACT.

The left has proven its lost their mind and and semblance of caring about the constitution as a system to be modified via its mechanisms.

#89 | Posted by AndreaMackris at 2016-11-24 09:44 PM | Reply

"What would an accurate electoral map look like?"
images.search.yahoo.com
#79 | POSTED BY DANFORTH

What is the point of that map?

That is how electors are selected today.

The point is that you can't have an electoral/republic system under a popular vote.

#90 | Posted by AndreaMackris at 2016-11-24 09:46 PM | Reply

The idea each of our votes should count equally is the bedrock of any system in which a government requires the consent of the governed.
#50 | Posted by rcade

No its not....

The popular vote is what is used within the states. The founders felt the states were relatively important, its how the founders put in place both a house (people) and senate (states).

The idea was that it would be difficult to have smaller states put under the control of the states with a larger populous. The founders looked hard at democracies in the past and felt this sort of republic system would work better and last longer without turning towards tyranny.

You haven't made your case, relative the depth and logic, the founding fathers made theirs.

#91 | Posted by AndreaMackris at 2016-11-24 09:52 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Because we love our country and want to see it survive and prosper.

We love our country just as much as you do. You're just offering an empty appeal to emotion that has zero bearing on this debate.

Letting a person in Wyoming have 3.6 times as much voting power as one in California does not help the country "survive and prosper." It creates illegitimacy in the presidency.

The only reason you support this is because it put your side in power. If it kept your side out of power, you'd be like Trump in 2012 when he thought Romney won the popular vote but lost the election. He tweeted, "We can't let this happen. We should march on Washington and stop this travesty. ... Lets fight like hell and stop this great and disgusting injustice! The world is laughing at us. This election is a total sham and a travesty. We are not a democracy! Our country is now in serious and unprecedented trouble...like never before. The electoral college is a disaster for a democracy."

It's a shame there isn't a single Trump voter here willing to admit the Electoral College is a joke even though it was to your benefit. Like Trump, you are demonstrating ethics and beliefs that are entirely situational.

Every vote should count equally in this country, whether we're choosing a president, governor or mayor.

#92 | Posted by rcade at 2016-11-24 09:56 PM | Reply

www.michigan.gov

Welp...

Trump won Michigan. Lot of cows there I assume.

300+ Electoral Votes...

Como se dice LandSlide en english???

#93 | Posted by aescal at 2016-11-24 10:16 PM | Reply

Trump won Michigan.

2,279,543 Donald J. Trump, Republican
2,268,839 Hillary Clinton, Democratic

Difference between them? .00469

And a recount is out of the question for exactly why?

If the results were reversed, do you really think you'd be against Trump demanding the same?

Yeah, right....

#94 | Posted by tonyroma at 2016-11-24 10:22 PM | Reply

North Carolina Governor's Race:

Roy Cooper (D) 2,970,662 Votes

Pat McCrory (R) 2,512,141 Votes

Difference? .1543

McCrory is not only demanding a recount, he is claiming fraud as well.

Your lack of outrage is noted.

#95 | Posted by tonyroma at 2016-11-24 10:34 PM | Reply

#95

Bad totals. Should be Roy Cooper Pat McCrory

Popular vote 2,299,920 2,292,199

Difference .0033

Pretty close, eh?

#96 | Posted by tonyroma at 2016-11-24 10:37 PM | Reply

Preparation H may help you libs through this..

#97 | Posted by Greatamerican at 2016-11-24 10:46 PM | Reply

#97 - only if you apply it generally and liberally with your hands, ungloved, to your head.
Vigorously.

#98 | Posted by YAV at 2016-11-24 10:51 PM | Reply

#94 | Posted by tonyroma
Richard Nixon didn't complain.

#99 | Posted by Federalist at 2016-11-25 07:16 AM | Reply

Hillary won 21 states.

Trump won 29

We are a Federation of States.

That's why Trump won.

Get over it.

#100 | Posted by boaz at 2016-11-25 07:32 AM | Reply

www.cnn.com

#101 | Posted by boaz at 2016-11-25 07:32 AM | Reply

All this banter about the popular vote is soooo productive. Think of what it did for Al Gore!!! Keep it up, liberals! See if you can dig yourselves into an even deeper hole. My bet is you can...

#102 | Posted by babyhuey at 2016-11-25 01:45 PM | Reply

I love football analogies: if only we had gone for it on 4th and 1! If only we would have kicked a field goal instead of going for the first down on 4th and 1. If only, if only, if only. Coulda, woulda, shoulda, LIBERALS! You gotta play 60 minutes of football! But your entitled QB Lyin' Hillary got cocky instead of taking care of business--and the rest is history. You all got cocky, you thought you had it in the bag! But you didn't. And you LOST!!! So, enjoy your popular vote. Maybe it'll give the left the same mandate Gore got for winning the popular vote. LMFAO. Time to move on Libbies, your candidate is a political corpse. Dig a hole, drop her in, throw some dirt on her, and move your "coastal party" on to the next election!

#103 | Posted by babyhuey at 2016-11-25 01:58 PM | Reply

Just think all those votes and she finished second where there is only one position that counts and it is not second.. I am sure Hillary is more concerned on the question of her being charged/ investigated rather than the most popular votes in a race that is determined by the most electoral votes..

She had the decision of being a crook or be squeaky clean as she knew she was going to run for pres.. She needed the money more than the presidency.. Sh would have won without the emails and pay for play.. the one that lost the election for her was her..

#104 | Posted by RIVERRAT2284 at 2016-11-25 02:40 PM | Reply

This thread is the gift that keeps on giving! She lost.
Get over it.

#105 | Posted by Federalist at 2016-11-25 08:25 PM | Reply

Comments are closed for this entry.

Home | Breaking News | Comments | User Blogs | Stats | Back Page | RSS Feed | RSS Spec | DMCA Compliance | Privacy | Copyright 2016 World Readable

-->
Drudge Retort