Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Trump could have done better in the popular vote but he had to concentrate on states he had to win: FL, OH, PA, NC. He had to go to them again and again. He could have picked up a lot more votes in CA, NY but not enough to win them. So why campaign there? He didn't have the $$$ Clinton did, his own party wasn't supporting him. He was his only campaigner.
There you go again, using facts and logic to win the argument.
Oh come on. From someone who despised Trump and made it clearly known here , cut the crap and grow up . It was clearly a free and fair election, and it was conducted the same way as every other POTUS election in the history of the US. If you don't like the only system we have ever had for electing a POTUS then that's OK, you don't have to. But don't start this bullcrap suggesting it wasnt free and fair and legit because you are a sore loser . Pick a better candidate next time .
Just as a point of information, the way elections are conducted has changed a lot during the history of the United States.
the will of the people WAS NOT DENIED, contrary to so called popular opinion. if the system worked as advertised, then what are you complaining about? the people spoke in EVERY state. the reason the electoral college was set up in the first place is so that a few large population centers cant bully the rest of the country. why should rhode island have less of a say in who is president than california? note that trump led the popular voting until votes started being counted in california.
and even then if you look at the california map, it is awash in red since trump won most of the counties there, only the big cities voted for clinton.
the people were not denied, never have been, never will be.
The electoral college wasn't set up as a winner-take-all system in the first place.
Wow. This is historical. Clinton's popular vote lead has increased to 1.5 Million votes.
How likely is it that almost all polls for months were that wrong? Anyone know the gambling odds of that? It's historical for all those polls to have been so wrong for so long, as far as I know.
The fact remains that the candidate who won the most votes did not win the election. How can we push other countries to have free and democratic values when we do not?
Yes very g00d point!!!!
The election WAS NOT legit and ppl dont seem to care........ Its very sad....
The election WAS NOT legit and ppl dont seem to care........ Its very sad....
It was absolutely LEGIT given the system that was laid out when the nation was created. Sorry it didn't go your way. To quote your hero "at this point what does it really matter"? There's always 2020, Hillary will be in the prime of her life!
Get her an power chair and run her again.
I'm sure medicare will pay for it as she's sure to claim being poor again...
The election WAS NOT legit and ppl dont seem to care........ Its very sad....
As has been stated ad nauseam, t's legit according to the way it's been set up and has been done all along. What is sad is that some of you suddenly don't like the existing system because your candidate lost.
And as I've stated before, I don't doubt that many of the votes for Hillary are from illegals and dead people, so if those were deducted from the total, she may not even have won the popular vote.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.