It's Official: Clinton's Popular Vote Win Came Entirely From California

[EvilWasLittle]

Well, there you have it. She won California by a margin of 4.3 Million votes.

Democrats who are having trouble getting out of the first stage of grief — denial — aren't being helped by the fact that, now that all the votes are counted, Hillary Clinton's lead in the popular vote has topped 2.8 million, giving her a 48% share of the vote compared with Trumps 46%.

To those unschooled in how the United States selects presidents, this seems totally unfair. But look more closely at the numbers and you see that Clinton's advantage all but disappears.

As we noted in this space earlier, while Clinton's overall margin looks large and impressive, it is due to Clinton's huge margin of victory in one state — California — where she got a whopping 4.3 million more votes than Trump.

California is the only state, in fact, where Clinton's margin of victory was bigger than President Obama's in 2012 — 61.5% vs. Obama's 60%.

But California is the exception that proves the true genius of the Electoral College — which was designed to prevent regional candidates from dominating national elections.

Number of states won:
Trump: 30
Clinton: 20
_________________
Trump: +10

Number of electoral votes won:
Trump: 306
Clinton: 232
_________________
Trump: + 68

Ave. margin of victory in winning states:
Trump: 56%
Clinton: 53.5%
_________________
Trump: + 2.5 points

Popular vote total:
Trump: 62,958,211
Clinton: 65,818,318
_________________
Clinton: + 2.8 million

Popular vote total outside California:
Trump: 58,474,401
Clinton: 57,064,530
_________________
Trump: + 1.4 million

Full Article:
http://www.investors.com/politics/c...pular-vote-win-came-entirely-from-california/

 

[xcvbn]

Bernie would've won 80%

 

[Jack V Savage]

Holy moly is that dumb. If you don't count a lot of people who voted for Clinton, Trump would have won the popular vote. That's like saying that if you don't count the rounds that Woodley won, Thompson would be the champ. Take both California and Appalachia out of the picture, and Clinton still wins.

 

[kpt018]

Looks like someone doesn't understand what the popular vote means.

 

[JonnyRingo84]

lol

well if i could just remove these millions of people that i dont like, then my candidate would have won the popular. genius ts.

werent you ranting about how the popular vote doesnt matter? get over it already if it doesnt matter.

 

[TheFirstEMP]

Exactly why we have the Electoral College. So dumbass California liberals can't keep fucking the U.S. over with their shitty politicians.

 

[RighteousWar]

 

[RighteousWar]

lol

well if i could just remove these millions of people that i dont like, then my candidate would have won the popular. genius ts.

werent you ranting about how the popular vote doesnt matter? get over it already if it doesnt matter.

Damn, son! You barely broke the 1K 'Like' mark...judging by your crappy posts, I can see why.

 

[PrinceOfPain]

So, basically, the election of someone like her is exactly what the electoral college vote exists to prevent?

 

[EvilWasLittle]

So, basically, the election of someone like her is exactly what the electoral college vote exists to prevent?

No, it's to prevent one region of the country from controlling the election, as it states in the article.

 

[EvilWasLittle]

Holy moly is that dumb. If you don't count a lot of people who voted for Clinton, Trump would have won the popular vote. That's like saying that if you don't count the rounds that Woodley won, Thompson would be the champ. Take both California and Appalachia out of the picture, and Clinton still wins.

It's making a case for the Electoral College, which you totally missed.

 

[Jack V Savage]

So, basically, the election of someone like her is exactly what the electoral college vote exists to prevent?

Huh?

It's making a case for the Electoral College, which you totally missed.

What is the case?

 

[EvilWasLittle]

Huh?



What is the case?

To prevent any certain region from controlling the election. As I said right above and as it says in the article, which you didn't read.

 

[PrinceOfPain]

No, it's to prevent one region of the country from controlling the election, as it states in the article.

Didn't read the article.
But that's what I said. 'Someone like her,' being someone who only has the support of a populous geographic region, rather than being a representative of the country as a whole.

 

[Jack V Savage]

To prevent any certain region to control the election. As I said right above and as it says in the article, which you didn't read.

That makes no sense. It enables regions to control the election even if they have fewer people. A national popular vote would give every voter equal weight, regardless of where they live.

 

[JonnyRingo84]

No, it's to prevent one region of the country from controlling the election, as it states in the article.

thats part of it, and rightly so. kinda....what it prevents is sectionalism.

however, initially in the US our founders thought as many in the time did, that the common man is not capable of voting directly on the executive. they thought the masses are too easily swayed an manipulated, so they only allowed direct vote on the house of representatives in the US.

 

[WiolentOne]

Huh?



What is the case?

All that matters is Trump spanked that loser and all the stupid lemmings that thought she was gonna win by a landslide.

 

[EvilWasLittle]

That makes no sense. It enables regions to control the election even if they have fewer people.

Wrong. It gives each state a fair share in the election based on size. Maine 1 vote, Cali 55. Maine is not controlling shit as it has 1 vote to Cali's 55.

 

[Jack V Savage]

thats part of it, and rightly so.

however, initially in the US our founders thought as many in the time did, that the common man is not capable of voting directly on the executive. they thought the masses are too easily swayed an manipulated, so they only allowed direct vote on the house of representatives in the US.

I was discussing this with Denter. If you're distrustful of democracy, the solution would be electing electors on the basis of respect for their judgment rather than electors who are pledged to a candidate. If you believe that we can democratically elect a president, a popular vote makes the most sense. The current system is just a dated relic that isn't intelligently designed to serve any modern purpose.

 

[EvilWasLittle]

I was discussing this with Denter. If you're distrustful of democracy, the solution would be electing electors on the basis of respect for their judgment rather than electors who are pledged to a candidate. If you believe that we can democratically elect a president, a popular vote makes the most sense. The current system is just a dated relic that isn't intelligently designed to serve any modern purpose.

The system works fine and it works exactly as it was designed to work. I see no issue.