He has the popular vote as well

[..]

Wonder if this will stop the idiot protestors and those who want the electoral college done away with.

Nope it wont.

Votes for Trump – State – Clinton
4,605,515 Florida 4,485,745
2,068,623 Georgia 1,837,300
1,143,611 South Carolina 849,469
2,339,603 North Carolina 2,162,074
1,731,156 Virginia 1,916,845
873,646 Maryland 1,497,951
486,198 West Virginia 187,457
1,535,513 New Jersey 2,021,756
2,640,570 New York 4,143,874
637,919 conneticut 823,360
2,912,941 Pennsylvania 2,844,705
185,103 Deleware 235,581
1,083,069 massachusetts 1,964,768
345,598 new-hampshire 348,126
95,050 vermont 178,117
334,838 maine 354,873
173,369 rhode-island 237,851
1,306,925 alabama 718,084
678,457 Mississippi 462,001
1,178,004 Louisiana 779,535
1,517,402 Tennessee 867,110
1,202,942 Kentucky 628,834
2,771,984 Ohio 2,317,001
1,556,220 Indiana 1,031,953
2,118,179 Illinois 2,977,498
2,279,210 michigan 2,267,373
1,409,467 Wisconsin 1,382,210
1,322,891 Minnesota 1,366,676
798,923 Iowa 650,790
1,585,753 missouri 1,054,889
677,904 Arkansas 378,729
216,133 north dakota 93,526
227,701 south dakota 117,442
485,819 nebraska 273,858
656,009 kansas 414,788
947,934 oklahoma 419,788
4,681,590 texas 3,867,816
1,137,455 colorado 1,212,209
174,248 wyoming 55,949
274,120 montana 174,521
1,308,633 washington 902,840
11,553 washington dc 260,223
742,506 oregon 934,631
2,990,062 California 5,528,043
407,199 idaho 189,677
397,004 utah 237,241
1,017,166 arizona 933,655
315,875 New Mexico 380,724
130,415 alaska 93,007
128,815 Hawaii 266,827
Total people vote for Trump = 59, 846, 820
versus
Total people vote for Clinton = 59,329,300

Donald Trump received 517,520 more people votes than Clinton"

She lost. The end.

[Serk]

The current results I'm turning up show Hillary at a total of 60,467,601, ahead of President-Elect Trump's total of 60,072,551, putting her ahead by 395,066... (Which is probably only a fraction of the dead people, illegals, multi voting etc. that the Democrats love to do, of course...)

But as of now, unless there's some major swing that's added to the numbers later (Wonder if the military vote's included in those numbers, for instance?) she has the popular vote.

Luckily, we don't choose a president based on the popular vote in this country.

[Mobile Mayor]

Wise men, who understood the need to mitigate mob rule, made this possible.  I stand with the electoral college, no matter past, present, or future. 

[old2soon]

Read where over one million have signed a petition asking/begging or pleading the electoral college to install hrc Instead of Trump as POTUS.  Must be a LOT more butt hurt folks out there than I imagined!  RIDE SAFE.

[dragonslayer]

Yup,a lot paid for by Soros,one guy went undercover and managed to get $3500 for 1 nights work causing trouble against Trump.Have you noticed that these babies that where taught this crap in school all still where their diaper pins,still need them I guess.Also seems Bill can't do anything right either as their daughter isn't even his.What a miserable excuse of the human race they all are.

[Robert]

Great video you have to watch.


Who's laughing now?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=147&v=Qzl8xjkgXCo

[Jess from VA]

Most excellent!!   

[scooperhsd]

Depending on your source - Trump DOES NOT have the popular vote - just the most votes in the Electoral College (which is what REALLY counts).

[Willow]

Depending on your source - Trump DOES NOT have the popular vote - just the most votes in the Electoral College (which is what REALLY counts).

Speculation from several sources is that when all the votes are counted Trump will turn out to be ahead considerably in the popular vote.

The totality of votes will not be counted and verified until next year.

[TallRider]

Here is a brief explanation of electoral collage. Founders created it to make it difficult or nearly impossible to cheat and take an election.  As today were the Democrates are trying to flood the electorate with eligal immigrants and trying to give them voting rights were ever possible to create a majority. The fact states populations and party effiliatons constantly change  its hard to pick a state to rig as each election there are variations on were the key states are. Kind of interesting and ingenious.   

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/video/2016/oct/31/how-does-electoral-college-work-us-election-video

[Chrisj CMA]

That's exactly right, I have always been for eliminating the electoral college but not until the vote is made more secure.

[Alpha Dog]

Best guess is he won the legal popular vote.  We may find out later when Michael Barrone publishes the book he does after each election according to Rush Limbaugh.  Michael is a numbers and analyst  cruncher extraordinaier who may find as many as 4 million illegal votes.

[G-Man]

If the electoral college is abandoned, the entire nation will be at the mercy of those living in California and the northeast states (NY, NJ, CT, VT, MA, etc.)

The entire middle of the country and the south would have no say in who will be the country's President and commander in chief.

While there are 50 individual states, they are just that........individual.  With traditions, concerns, economies, etc. all to themselves.  Why should all these millions of people be subjected to the wants of only 6 or 7 states?

It's for these reasons that there are 2 senators for each state regardless of their size and population.  So Rhode Island doesn't get overrun by NY or CA, or any of the other 49 states.

[signart]

If the electoral college is abandoned, the entire nation will be at the mercy of those living in California and the northeast states (NY, NJ, CT, VT, MA, etc.)

The entire middle of the country and the south would have no say in who will be the country's President and commander in chief.

While there are 50 individual states, they are just that........individual.  With traditions, concerns, economies, etc. all to themselves.  Why should all these millions of people be subjected to the wants of only 6 or 7 states?

It's for these reasons that there are 2 senators for each state regardless of their size and population.  So Rhode Island doesn't get overrun by NY or CA, or any of the other 49 states.

I you think about it...it all makes sense. Our forefathers were very thoughtful and very sharp. Think "Two wolves and one lamb deciding what to have for supper". (Not my quote, don't remember who)

[..]

If the electoral college is abandoned, the entire nation will be at the mercy of those living in California and the northeast states (NY, NJ, CT, VT, MA, etc.)

The entire middle of the country and the south would have no say in who will be the country's President and commander in chief.

While there are 50 individual states, they are just that........individual.  With traditions, concerns, economies, etc. all to themselves.  Why should all these millions of people be subjected to the wants of only 6 or 7 states?

It's for these reasons that there are 2 senators for each state regardless of their size and population.  So Rhode Island doesn't get overrun by NY or CA, or any of the other 49 states.

"They" make it so obvious that what "they" want is central control of the nation from a central government.

[Moonshot_1]

Love baseball analogies.
Thought I'd use one for the Electoral College.

Let's take a World Series. Best of 7 games.

The Cubs and Indians.

Game 1 -   5-0 Indians
Game 2 -   5-0 Indians

Game 3 -   0-5 Indians
Game 4 -   1-0 Cubs
Game 5 -   1-0 Cubs

Game 6 -   0-1 Cubs
Game 7 -   0-1 Cubs

Cubs win the Series!!

But the Indians scored 15 runs and the Cubs only 4!

Them is the rules.

The votes are the runs but the States are the games.

What is really interesting is that in doing this I went and actually added up the scores from this year's series.

Both teams scored 27 runs each for the entire series.

[Jess from VA]

I used to think the Electoral College was undemocratic.  I then learned how it protected the small population states.

Today, I would change it to make no state having less than 5 Electoral votes, and take those few extra votes away from CA, NY, TX, FL and PA (or say, from any state having 20 or more votes) to cover those few extras.

[Alpha Dog]

Love baseball analogies.
Thought I'd use one for the Electoral College.

Let's take a World Series. Best of 7 games.

The Cubs and Indians.

Game 1 -   5-0 Indians
Game 2 -   5-0 Indians

Game 3 -   0-5 Indians
Game 4 -   1-0 Cubs
Game 5 -   1-0 Cubs

Game 6 -   0-1 Cubs
Game 7 -   0-1 Cubs

Cubs win the Series!!

But the Indians scored 15 runs and the Cubs only 4!

Them is the rules.

The votes are the runs but the States are the games.

What is really interesting is that in doing this I went and actually added up the scores from this year's series.

Both teams scored 27 runs each for the entire series.

A good analogy.  This is actual one from 1960 World series    Yankees vs Pirates.

game 1   yanks 4   Pitts 6.      game 2   yanks 16   Pitts. 3     game 3   yanks 10   Pitts 0.   game 4   yanks 2   Pitts 3.     game 5  yanks 2  Pitts 5.   game 6   yanks 2   Pitts 5.    game 7  yanks 9  Pitts. 10.

Wow.  Yankees scored 55 runs in a 7 game series  darn near 8 runs per game.  Maybe the most ever in a 7 game series, at any rate they should have dominated.  But Pittsburg with just 27 runs less than half the Yankees total won 4 games and the Series.


What if the electoral college was replaced with popular vote.  The candidates would not have spent much time in the fly over states, Instead all would have been concentrated in the population centers, CA, TX, NY, FL, Jersey, Pa, IL and the  message tailored to them and not so much the concerns of Middle America.

[cookiedough]

Man,  was that a close outcome in the last few up in the air states of PA,  WI, MI, and MN, to name a few.

Glad they said a lot of democratic voters stayed home and the trump people came out and voted.  I think it helped trump win WI for he campaigned heavily IN PERSON in our state that last week to help him win vs. Hillary was nowhere to be found EVER.  She just assumed since WI is almost always Democratic she would easily win WI - she thought WRONG...

[The emperor has no clothes]

Depending on your source - Trump DOES NOT have the popular vote - just the most votes in the Electoral College (which is what REALLY counts).

Speculation from several sources is that when all the votes are counted Trump will turn out to be ahead considerably in the popular vote.

The totality of votes will not be counted and verified until next year.

I speculate your several sources to be wrong. It doesn't a damn thing though.

[Willow]

Depending on your source - Trump DOES NOT have the popular vote - just the most votes in the Electoral College (which is what REALLY counts).

Speculation from several sources is that when all the votes are counted Trump will turn out to be ahead considerably in the popular vote.

The totality of votes will not be counted and verified until next year.

I speculate your several sources to be wrong. It doesn't a damn thing though.

LOL!  When one speculates pretending to take the high ground it's best to use complete sentences.   

[The emperor has no clothes]

Depending on your source - Trump DOES NOT have the popular vote - just the most votes in the Electoral College (which is what REALLY counts).

Speculation from several sources is that when all the votes are counted Trump will turn out to be ahead considerably in the popular vote.

The totality of votes will not be counted and verified until next year.

I speculate your several sources to be wrong. It doesn't a damn thing though.

LOL!  When one speculates pretending to take the high ground it's best to use complete sentences.   

proofreading has not been my best attribute . No high ground here. It seems pretty apparent she will have the popular vote. But it wouldn't matter if she had 5 million more than him.

[Moonshot_1]

So, what if the Electoral College was replaced by the popular vote?

First, we'd need to amend the Constitution to do that. A difficult process in and of itself.

But it gets even more difficult. The only election for a federal office is currently the Electoral College.
Everything else is a State Election. What does this mean? It means to get to a popular vote we must come up with the Federal rules for that popular vote. Remember, we just tanked the Electoral College with the Popular vote amendment. Doing that means the States are no longer responsible to hold a vote for their Electors for the federal office.

So now the Federal rules must be written. Now you can say that we'll just use the State totals but that won't work on a number of levels. Since this is now a federal election, the voting laws must be the same nationwide. All the polling places must meet federal laws and not state laws because now it is a federal election.
All the complexities must be accounted for in the new Constitutional amendment.

And think of the complexities of having to do a recount.

Take this election. Nearly 120 million votes cast and a difference of less than 500,000.
(I would bet a verification and recount of Illinois alone would eliminate that, but I digress..)
1.2 million votes is 1% of the total. So the margin is less than 1/2 of a percent.

LESS THAN 1/2 A PERCENT!

Obama would get his 3rd term because it would take 4 years of constant recounting to get a real and verified total. Then he'd get another term waiting on the Courts to decide an unending series of challenges of nearly every federal precinct. (I jest here of course. well, maybe not)

We've seen what happens now days in a lawful and significant Electoral College victory.

Imagine the chaos with a statistically tied popular vote having to be used.

With the Electoral College the States get the same representation on Legislative matters as they do in the election of the Executive Branch of Government. Simple and elegant.

[Willow]

Depending on your source - Trump DOES NOT have the popular vote - just the most votes in the Electoral College (which is what REALLY counts).

Speculation from several sources is that when all the votes are counted Trump will turn out to be ahead considerably in the popular vote.

The totality of votes will not be counted and verified until next year.

I speculate your several sources to be wrong. It doesn't a damn thing though.

LOL!  When one speculates pretending to take the high ground it's best to use complete sentences.   

proofreading has not been my best attribute . No high ground here. It seems pretty apparent she will have the popular vote. But it wouldn't matter if she had 5 million more than him.

Yeah.  My response was addressing the upper cased "DOES NOT" in the post I quoted.  I don't think it means anything in regard to the legality of the election but it would take the wind out of the sales of those who insist that because Hillary won the popular vote that she was the one preferred by the American people.

On election night states are called both by news media when it is obvious that a particular candidate has won the vote in that state.  The actual vote counting is not complete at that time and goes on for some time.  In a large population state such as California it can be determined that the majority of votes went one way while a portion of the votes such as military mail in ballots have yet to be counted.  Those yet uncounted votes will not be enough to turn the election but could make a difference in the popular vote.    

[scooperhsd]

If we don't (or can't) get rid of the Electoral College - then I'd favor that each state's elector shall be in the proportion to the votes cast for each candidate - no more "All or nothing". 

As an example , here in NC, there was about 4% difference in the vote count between  Trump and Clinton. So, Trump would get 8 electoral votes, and Clinton would get 7. As it is currently done - all 15 went to Trump.  I find that insulting / demeaning / etc.

[The emperor has no clothes]

If we don't (or can't) get rid of the Electoral College - then I'd favor that each state's elector shall be in the proportion to the votes cast for each candidate - no more "All or nothing". 

As an example , here in NC, there was about 4% difference in the vote count between  Trump and Clinton. So, Trump would get 8 electoral votes, and Clinton would get 7. As it is currently done - all 15 went to Trump.  I find that insulting / demeaning / etc.

States Rights. Each state gets to apportion their electoral votes how they see fit. Some do as you say. Or sort of. They apportion them according to congressional district. Personally I'm in favor of the system we have. It gives SLIGHTLY more power to small states.

[Moonshot_1]

If we don't (or can't) get rid of the Electoral College - then I'd favor that each state's elector shall be in the proportion to the votes cast for each candidate - no more "All or nothing". 

As an example , here in NC, there was about 4% difference in the vote count between  Trump and Clinton. So, Trump would get 8 electoral votes, and Clinton would get 7. As it is currently done - all 15 went to Trump.  I find that insulting / demeaning / etc.

So if the vote is split 60/40 you would support one candidate being President Monday, Wed., Fri and the other Tues, and Thursday and alternate weekends?

Why you would find the will of the majority in lawful and legitimate vote insulting and demeaning is sad.

The system works.

[Gavin_Sons]

Depending on your source - Trump DOES NOT have the popular vote - just the most votes in the Electoral College (which is what REALLY counts).

Speculation from several sources is that when all the votes are counted Trump will turn out to be ahead considerably in the popular vote.

The totality of votes will not be counted and verified until next year.

I speculate your several sources to be wrong. It doesn't a damn thing though.

LOL!  When one speculates pretending to take the high ground it's best to use complete sentences.   

proofreading has not been my best attribute . No high ground here. It seems pretty apparent she will have the popular vote. But it wouldn't matter if she had 5 million more than him.

Yeah.  My response was addressing the upper cased "DOES NOT" in the post I quoted.  I don't think it means anything in regard to the legality of the election but it would take the wind out of the sales of those who insist that because Hillary won the popular vote that she was the one preferred by the American people.

On election night states are called both by news media when it is obvious that a particular candidate has won the vote in that state.  The actual vote counting is not complete at that time and goes on for some time.  In a large population state such as California it can be determined that the majority of votes went one way while a portion of the votes such as military mail in ballots have yet to be counted.  Those yet uncounted votes will not be enough to turn the election but could make a difference in the popular vote.    

since we are playing grammar police. Read the highlighted part again.  ???

[Willow]

Yeah.  My response was addressing the upper cased "DOES NOT" in the post I quoted.  I don't think it means anything in regard to the legality of the election but it would take the wind out of the sales of those who insist that because Hillary won the popular vote that she was the one preferred by the American people.

On election night states are called both by news media when it is obvious that a particular candidate has won the vote in that state.  The actual vote counting is not complete at that time and goes on for some time.  In a large population state such as California it can be determined that the majority of votes went one way while a portion of the votes such as military mail in ballots have yet to be counted.  Those yet uncounted votes will not be enough to turn the election but could make a difference in the popular vote.    

since we are playing grammar police. Read the highlighted part again.  ???

LOL!  Yes, my typing skills and naval knowledge have always been substandard.  Perhaps what they are selling was more on my mind than where they are sailing. 

It looks like I also removed an and phrase without taking out the both.   

[Gavin_Sons]

Yeah.  My response was addressing the upper cased "DOES NOT" in the post I quoted.  I don't think it means anything in regard to the legality of the election but it would take the wind out of the sales of those who insist that because Hillary won the popular vote that she was the one preferred by the American people.

On election night states are called both by news media when it is obvious that a particular candidate has won the vote in that state.  The actual vote counting is not complete at that time and goes on for some time.  In a large population state such as California it can be determined that the majority of votes went one way while a portion of the votes such as military mail in ballots have yet to be counted.  Those yet uncounted votes will not be enough to turn the election but could make a difference in the popular vote.    

since we are playing grammar police. Read the highlighted part again.  ???

LOL!  Yes, my typing skills and naval knowledge have always been substandard.  Perhaps what they are selling was more on my mind than where they are sailing. 

It looks like I also removed an and phrase without taking out the both.   

  just pulling your leg Willow. 

[Chrisj CMA]

Well, the left has amassed 4.3 million signatures to petition the Electoral College.  They are asking the College to vote for Hillary instead of Trump. 

One would just wonder how many of the 4.3 M signatures are legitimate? 

There have been votes by the Electoral College the other way before, however, no election has ever been overturned in the history of the College......what a wild end to a wild election if they do it!

I cant even imagine the chaos that would cause!!

[Jess from VA]

I read (but can't verify) that over 231 million Americans were eligible to vote.  Based on early results from the 2016 Presidential election, just over 130 million of them voted.  Of the 130 million, the 4.3 million signatures is 3% of the voters.  Since when do 3% get to petition to decide an election, contrary to the election?

If the electoral voters were to alter their votes for HRC in violation of the system, they should forfeit their heads.

[old2soon]

Soooooooooo IF the unimaginable happens-the electoral college over turns We The People WHERE do that leave-We The People?? Some body HAD to ask! RIDE SAFE.

[TallRider]

I read (but can't verify) that over 231 million Americans were eligible to vote.  Based on early results from the 2016 Presidential election, just over 130 million of them voted.  Of the 130 million, the 4.3 million signatures is 3% of the voters.  Since when do 3% get to petition to decide an election, contrary to the election?

If the electoral voters were to alter their votes for HRC in violation of the system, they should forfeit their heads.

And it's beginning  to look like half of the protesters didn't vote and probably the same on the petition 

[Moonshot_1]

Soooooooooo IF the unimaginable happens-the electoral college over turns We The People WHERE do that leave-We The People?? Some body HAD to ask! RIDE SAFE.

As I understand it, and we are discussing an event that would not likely happen in any parallel universe ever, the electors are not Constitutionally bound to cast their vote for their State's choice. The electors are simply given the responsibility of going to Washington to cast their vote. However, the way the electors are now selected would virtually guarantee that they would cast their vote in the predictable manner they were represented on the ballot but, they are not Constitutionally required to do so.

It may be possible that one or two of the electors that were selected to vote for Mr. Trump may choose to cast their vote for someone else. Clearly, Mr. Trump has such a commanding Electoral lead that such a "mutiny" would have no effect. Except to banish the elector from participating in future political endeavors by their respective political party.

This scenario isn't really within the realm of possibility. It would require Mr. Trump to do something so egregious, treasonous, unlawful as in a major felony kind of way, or something so appalling as to cause  the entire nation to reject him. I mean, loping heads off of babies in Times Square while praising Satan in prime time kind of appalling . 

So, no worries.

[baldo]

This scenario isn't really within the realm of possibility. It would require Mr. Trump to do something so egregious, treasonous, unlawful as in a major felony kind of way, or something so appalling as to cause  the entire nation to reject him. I mean, loping heads off of babies in Times Square while praising Satan in prime time kind of appalling . 

So, no worries.

Well, he did say he could shoot someone "in the middle of 5th Avenue and not lose any voters". So there's that...

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/video/2016/jan/24/donald-trump-i-could-shoot-somebody-and-not-lose-votes-video

[Moonshot_1]

This scenario isn't really within the realm of possibility. It would require Mr. Trump to do something so egregious, treasonous, unlawful as in a major felony kind of way, or something so appalling as to cause  the entire nation to reject him. I mean, loping heads off of babies in Times Square while praising Satan in prime time kind of appalling . 

So, no worries.

Well, he did say he could shoot someone "in the middle of 5th Avenue and not lose any voters". So there's that...

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/video/2016/jan/24/donald-trump-i-could-shoot-somebody-and-not-lose-votes-video

And this is a perfect example of why the Democrats lost and the press lost and is losing respect among the people.

An obvious use of sarcasm in an appropriate context and for humorous effect is wildly spun into a comment that everyone is demanded to take seriously and to suggest that Mr. Trump really wants to shoot people.

You know that is not the case. Not even in a parallel universe kind of case.

This is the vitriol and warped political spin that the right has been beaten over the head with for decades.

This is why no one takes you folks seriously any more.

A party of liars and whiners. Jr. High is over man.

 

[baldo]

This scenario isn't really within the realm of possibility. It would require Mr. Trump to do something so egregious, treasonous, unlawful as in a major felony kind of way, or something so appalling as to cause  the entire nation to reject him. I mean, loping heads off of babies in Times Square while praising Satan in prime time kind of appalling . 

So, no worries.

Well, he did say he could shoot someone "in the middle of 5th Avenue and not lose any voters". So there's that...

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/video/2016/jan/24/donald-trump-i-could-shoot-somebody-and-not-lose-votes-video

And this is a perfect example of why the Democrats lost and the press lost and is losing respect among the people.

An obvious use of sarcasm in an appropriate context and for humorous effect is wildly spun into a comment that everyone is demanded to take seriously and to suggest that Mr. Trump really wants to shoot people.

You know that is not the case. Not even in a parallel universe kind of case.

This is the vitriol and warped political spin that the right has been beaten over the head with for decades.

This is why no one takes you folks seriously any more.

A party of liars and whiners. Jr. High is over man.

 

Wow, we really DO need a sarcasm button here. Should I just preface any comments meant to be sarcastic or tongue-in-cheek as such, just so there's no mistake?

Geesh.......

[Alpha Dog]

Rush Limbaugh has said for some time that Liberals take remarks by Trump seriously and not literally.  On the other hand Trump supporters have taken him literally and not seriously.  Explains a lot of what has happened.

[Willow]

... the electors are not Constitutionally bound to cast their vote for their State's choice. The electors are simply given the responsibility of going to Washington to cast their vote.
...

I guess by absolutely wild speculation it is possible although nothing remotely close has happened in the past.

About half the states do have laws binding their electors to vote as the state voted.  Interestingly, of those that do not have a legal binding sixteen voted for Donald Trump and their votes amount to a whopping 161.  To reverse the election we would have to see a change from the one or two who have very rarely cast faithless votes to about twenty percent of the ones who can.  I think the chances are slimmer than slim.

It's my understanding they don't gather to vote in Washington but that they cast their votes from their own state capitals.