More Americans voted for HRC than any other losing presidential candidate in US history

a reply to: Pyle

It gives voices to the flyover states, how do you not understand that? Why should a handful of coastal states decide the election every year? That makes absolutely no sense and if you're actually interested the EC was made partly to avoid party collusion in high populous areas. Meaning the framers were afraid that political parties would collude to gather in dense areas to garner more votes in a population based election, which is exactly what happens in sanctuary cities.

Please fix the title:

More South and Central Americans voted for HRC than any other losing presidential candidate in US history

So many threads have had the butthurt cream out there is no reason why the OP could not have remedied his irritants by now, unless of course it has developed into something a little more serious

a reply to: EightAhoy

Well said....well said.

It is amazing at the number of people on both sides of the campaign and that HRC still lost. The amount of money spent to lose in the manner in which she did is astounding as well. I guess quality versus quantity proved right yet again.....

originally posted by: Alien Abduct
a reply to: Indigo5



It only stands to reason that as the population grows so will the number of votes for the winner AND loser of the presidential election.

This was addressed in the OP...and again in the thread?

By measuring PERCENTAGE of the margin of total voters and comparing...population growth is no longer a factor.

By PERCENTAGE? Trump is the worst margin save 2 others over 250 yeas and 56 elections

By historical percentage of the popular vote lost vs. raw vote totals...trump ranks below in red ..With only two other Presidents ever seeing the WH while losing by a larger margin...and no President in History ever being elected with more Americans having not voted for him.

First up...GOOD POST...Links and facts.

I have read articles and watched interviews with Brad Parscale, Trumps Digital Campaign manager explain very plainly how they targeted exact districts with laser focused "messages" in PA, WI and MI.

originally posted by: EightAhoy

Obama's regulatory coal policies will be rolled back enough to *help* the coal industry, and then coal production will rebound, not what it was pre-Obama, but enough to get some miners back to work -- PA and WV and KY miners who didn't transition from the mine to the gas pad when the Marcellus play was humming.

Good to see a poster that recognizes that it is shale fracking that hammered the coal industry. I think we disagree on how much coal might respond to de-regulation. Deregulation might give it the tiniest of pushes right now...but any tiny boost will be swamped by the continued (accelerated under Trump) pace of fracking. Economics is economics. Gains in Fracking next year will easily dwarf any potential economic advantage coal will get through deregulation.

Forbes: It's President Trump Now, Sure Is, And Coal Mining Jobs Are Still Not Coming Back To Appalachia
www.forbes.com... f5c2884

The third reason is the killer: economics. Fracking has made natural gas cheaper than coal for power generation. Thus new generations of power plants are going to be gas ones, not coal. And refurbs and life extensions of coal plants aren’t going to happen for the same reason. There’s just not going to be anything like the same market for thermal coal in the future.

We’re not going to use as much coal in the future and the coal that we will use isn’t going to come from the Appalachian mines. Trump simply isn’t going to bring back all those mining jobs. They’re gone, gone forever.

Finally I brought up both the 2012 and 2008 PA General Election results map and realized, "Ahh ha! He's campaigning on the periphery of pink and red counties that abut light blue counties. On election night, three of those blue counties fell. It was then I decided to support Trump hoping that if he surrounds himself with the same brains behind the curtain who understood the end game -- the Electoral College -- then those same brains might play a role in the formation of a Trump Administration.

Brad Parscale...He was a no name guy in TX that ran a few websites for Trump's businesses and was a friend of Trump's sons. He took a shot at the digital strategy for Trump when the campaign began and ended up being a genius in digital strategy...he is one of the big reasons Trump won...It is fascinating when you look at what he did..it is worth googling if those things interest you. I can't find logical reasons to extend that to the rest of Trumps campaign, cabinet etc. Parscale knows how to lever insights and data...and frankly...what lies to tell to specific "Micro-Targeted" groups...that doesn't translate to macro-economics...Parscale can help get things done in National Policy..but he doesn't decide WHAT to get done...and his involvement was chance..not careful selection by Trump.

An aspect of the campaign I don't think got enough attention was paid manpower. In September Hillary had 800 paid campaign staff versus Trump's 80.

All kinds of failure in the way HRC ran the campaign...but honestly...If Trump had the same amount of money he might have fallen into the same predictable campaign strategy that both the GOP and Dems have spent on for decades.

Trump was actually advantaged by having less money...it forced him to give Parscale a shot at Digital Campaign manager...the guy who was hosting websites for the Trump Foundation etc..and Parscale came in with no knowledge of past campaigns...and that was an advantage in a time where the old model sucked for everything...Polls, Campaign Strategy ...everything...Parscale pushed for power in recent weeks during the transition, but has been largely marginalized and will be heading Trump's non-profit political arm...a foundation still being assembled.

More Americans voted for HRC than any other losing presidential candidate in US history

Until you eliminate the votes of illegal aliens, who are ineligible to vote, these statistics are inaccurate.

originally posted by: Pyle

originally posted by: Alien Abduct
Here is a little factoid that is about as useless as the OP...

Donald Trump got more votes THAN EVERY SINGLE PRESIDENT IN HISTORY (except for Obama).

And yet he still got less then Clinton. So he is the biggest loser in Presidential History. Crazy how the GOP cant get a president in without getting the Popular vote anymore.

Biggest loser? You are aware he won right?

Haters....

a reply to: Indigo5

By historical percentage of the popular vote lost vs. raw vote totals...trump ranks below in red ..With only two other Presidents ever seeing the WH while losing by a larger margin...and no President in History ever being elected with more Americans having not voted for him.

Did those two others you site also win the house and senate?
Had people really wanted hillarys agenda the senate and/or house would have flipped. That did not happen. People rejected hillarys crap platform candidacy in full.

a reply to: Indigo5

wrong.
www.dailymail.co.uk... New-York.htm

originally posted by: slider1982
And when it was all said and done, and even with the absurd MSM biased in the build up......


She came, she lost, we laughed........





If the DEM wanted to simply win they would have let Bernie run, this thread would not exist and Trump would be making millions in his business ventures, the agenda was totally different however and Hillary "had to be the person"...


RA

They lost by pushing aside Bernie and forcing a corrupt, war mongering, neo liberal, i.e. NOT a real progressive. She's a closet neo con.

Trump though is a con man. He's also corrupt and part of the globalized corporate world.

a reply to: Thunderheart

So only the bluest of the blue showed up to vote for her?
No wonder these people are screaming to get rid of the ec.

originally posted by: Thunderheart
a reply to: Indigo5

wrong.
www.dailymail.co.uk... New-York.htm

I am not sure you understand addition?

Uhh..Yes...My OP is 100% correct...

What you are showing is that IF you subtract the states of New York (Trumps home state BTW that hammered him) and California...the most populated state in the union...THEN Trump would have won the popular vote.

Sure...

And if you subtract Texas...Clinton would have won the Electoral college and the Popular vote both.

You can remove states from the union all day and come up with answers you like...

Doesn't make the tactic any less stupid...Cuz TX, NY and CA are states.

DP

originally posted by: shooterbrody
a reply to: Indigo5

By historical percentage of the popular vote lost vs. raw vote totals...trump ranks below in red ..With only two other Presidents ever seeing the WH while losing by a larger margin...and no President in History ever being elected with more Americans having not voted for him.

Did those two others you site also win the house and senate?

Interesting one of the only two Presidents to be elected despite losing the Popular vote by this large a percentage of the country?

Hayes?...He was a horse trade...The Southern States gave the Northern Republicans Hayes as President and electors flipped their votes in trade for the North to agreeing to withdrawal from the south and let the southern states handle reconstruction post-civil war on their own.

that just highlights how unusual it is for a President to be elected despite losing the popular vote by this much.

a reply to: Indigo5

That number is far less than the total population of Los Angeles.

And for the millionth time this election season, the popular vote means notadamnthing to the U.S. Constitution when it comes to deciding a winner. This popular-vote ranting and whining is irrelevant.

And popularity means jackdiddlysquatnuthin when the guy is still a month out from being president. Hyperbole during election cycles drives that popularity, but popularity only matters at high school proms. I give a rat's ass if the president is popular as long as he does the job well and with the best interest of the nation at heart, and that remains to be seen.

In summation: Who cares.

originally posted by: SlapMonkey
a reply to: Indigo5


In summation: Who cares.

Apparently Trump supporters? Who have tried every which way to deny mathematical reality in this thread.

originally posted by: Indigo5

originally posted by: shooterbrody
a reply to: Indigo5

By historical percentage of the popular vote lost vs. raw vote totals...trump ranks below in red ..With only two other Presidents ever seeing the WH while losing by a larger margin...and no President in History ever being elected with more Americans having not voted for him.

Did those two others you site also win the house and senate?

Interesting one of the only two Presidents to be elected despite losing the Popular vote by this large a percentage of the country?

Hayes?...He was a horse trade...The Southern States gave the Northern Republicans Hayes as President and electors flipped their votes in trade for the North to agreeing to withdrawal from the south and let the southern states handle reconstruction post-civil war on their own.

that just highlights how unusual it is for a President to be elected despite losing the popular vote by this much.

So no reply about Trumps winning the house and senate even though he lost a metric that has no bearing on the outcome of the election?

In the real world what comes out of the legislative branch(laws, SCOTUS nominee appointments) will be much more important than who is the actual POTUS.....ask the big O if you do not believe me.

So did Trump win the entire government or was hillary the first woman to lose it?

Another REMINDER!!!!

This is NOT the Mud Pit!!!!

Reaffirming Our Desire For Productive Political Debate (REVISED)

We expect civility and decorum within all topics.



and, as always:

Do NOT reply to this post!!

a reply to: Indigo5

The only mathematical reality that matters is that he earned 304 electoral votes whereas Clinton earned 228.

Other math that is relevant is that just two electors defected from Trump to vote for someone else, whereas twice as many deflected from Clinton and voted for someone else.

Trump supporters don't need to care about the pointless numbers in the OP because they don't matter one bit concerning the official presidential vote count.

But the biggest number than matters is "1." There will be one person being inaugurated on Jan. 20th, and he earned the office the way that it was designed to be earned. All other math, and numbers, and attempts to invalidate electoral votes and the like are sideshows that intelligent people should know to discard along with fruitcake and junk mail.

And for the record, I'm not a big fan of Trump, I didn't vote for him, but I am glad that he beat out Clinton. I'd rather get stabbed by a 2-inch blade than a 12-inch blade, but if it were up to me, we shouldn't have gotten stabbed at all.