You still don't get it, so maybe I'll type slow and it'll help. The popular vote DOESN'T MATTER, so candidates don't try to win the popular vote. They campaign to win delegate votes. If popular votes mattered, candidates would campaign differently to win that. I really hope this helps.

It sure seems to matter to a lot of you in here bitching about her winning it...

No, it really doesn't. We're just doing our best to educate the uneducated, such as yourself. By the way, you're welcome.

Wow, a lib calling someone a bigot and a racist, that's not something you see everyday! You libtards know that calling someone that now is like the little boy crying wolf, right? It's meaningless.

LOL, of course it matters you idiot. You morons can't claim you have some "mandate from the people" to disenfranchise more voters, remove rights given to LGTB, or pull insurance from 20 million people because you barely won the white house. It probably won't stop the conservatives from making such a claim because the feel like they won in a landslide but they didn't and the popular vote will always be a reminder of that.

13ball,

You are the moron that defended Donna Brazile. Defended human trash Anthony Weiner. You have countless posts leading up to the election (and since) displaying an incredible amount of ignorance and inability to think rationally.

Your above post itself is garbage. So sorry bud, but I get to be condescending to ignorant angry little clowns like yourself, because it is true, you literally lack the education, intelligence, and honesty necessary to discuss a topic as it relates to statistical analysis.

But of course that won't stop you from shouting your drivel, now will it?

It sucks that the democrats were thrashed in the House, Senate, governorships, and at every level up and down state legislatures.

Thanks Hillary and the DNC!

Hold up there now, We Got That Popular Vote Ya'll !!! Stadiums full of more popular votes! Suckkk it!

Haha! We don't need a "mandate from the people". We control the Presidency, the Senate, the House, 2/3 of the Governorships, and soon the Supreme Court. It's a beautiful world we live in, isn't it?😄

I pointed out that one of the questions she was accused of leaking was not a question actually asked. I know that hurt your feelings because you believe stupid ****. Not my problem.

You (or maybe some other dumbass) were making **** up. If Wiener is so bad (and he is), you shouldn't have to do that.

Ok.

The evidence you posted that the polls were "'not very accurate'...this cycle" showed that the polls were about as accurate as they usually are. It's not my fault you thought you had a big gotcha and you ****ed it up.

It's pretty obvious by your sad attempts to change the subject that you know you ****ed up. That makes your little tantrum here absolutely delicious.

And we also get to watch Tucker Carlson ripping liberals a new a--hole every night. What a time to be alive!

This thread is incomplete without some fresh triumphalism from the great man himself.

Don't forget the daily meltdowns on CNN. They're fun to watch.

5ive is mad because I founded Wil's ignore list and he merely tagged along for the ride.

I did enjoy remembering when Wil literally couldn't understand conditional statements.

Oh, and don't forget watching Rachel Maddow nightly alternate between almost crying and having her head explode in anger. Ahhhh, good times!

You guys are more tolerant than me. I try watching CNN and MSNBC and all they do now is spin every thing negatively toward Trump and White people. They are nothing but fear mongering shills.

It's not so much tolerance as it is stopping to watch a car wreck as you're driving by it on the road. It's sad, but you can't look away...Well, not sad for me!

That's not what he said.

You guys have to stop with this moronic line of thinking that Trump would've employed some new, out-of-the-box tactic to win the popular vote if it was the determinant instead of the EC. Hint: she'd have campaigned differently, too.

You controlled the Senate and the House by a wider margin prior to November 8th. You've had 2/3 of Governorships, or close to that number, for a couple of years now. You had a conservative majority in SCOTUS when Scalia was alive for quite awhile, and couldn't overturn Roe or stop Obergefell.

Not sure what your point is about having a wider margin of control in the House and Senate, since we still have control now. However, there are two major points that you're missing. The first is we now have a Republican president to go along with our Repubican House and Senate majority. The second is that by the time President Trump is out of office, there's a good chance we'll have a 7-2 conservative majority in the Supreme Court, and then **** hits the fan for the left.

He bet $3k to win $9k.

(Also, grats wil :P)

Who said he would?

They both would have campaigned differently, of course.

That's the whole point of the argument. Get it?

Can anyone who takes comfort in the popular vote give me a convincing reason to think about this differently?

Sup?

What's the need for this thread? I mean it's funny, but wtf is wrong with 5ive? At this point it may be a personal security issue. Dude is obsessed with me, and I have him on ignore. The # of haters is pretty funny too.

Winning the money wasn't so much of a big deal as being on the right side. The liberal idiocy was so off base it was comical. Anyone who thinks this was a normal result is delusional.

There's no "comfort" in the 2016 popular vote. But losing the popular vote and winning the EC doesn't happen often--only 5 times including this year. Of those 5, Trump is next to last in popular vote percentage (JQ Adams did worse, though against 3 strong contenders.)

Only Bush won a second term.

By historical standards, Trump did poorly for a winning candidate (Romney won a higher percentage of voters). Will it affect his presidency? I don't know.

Maybe it's not that they couldn't, but that they chose not to. Crazy thought, right?

They won't be able to.