2016 Postmortem
Related: About this forum Hillary Clintons Popular-Vote Victory Is Unprecedented and Still Growing
Last edited Thu Nov 17, 2016, 10:11 PM - Edit history (1)
But one thing is certain: Clintons win is unprecedented in the modern history of American presidential politics. And the numbers should focus attention on the democratic dysfunction that has been exposed.
When a candidate who wins the popular vote does not take office, when a loser is instead installed in the White House, that is an issue. And it raises questions that must be addressed.
Much more here:
https://www.thenation.com/article/hillary-clintons-popular-vote-victory-is-unprecedented-and-still-growing/
SickOfTheOnePct
(7,290 posts)LisaM
(27,830 posts)I don't think they meant she got an unprecedented number of votes or unprecedented winning margin. But it's over 1,350,000 at the moment.
otohara
(24,135 posts)they'll take it.
I love it that she's kicking ass with the popular vote.
Makes my days easier.
I feel that any call I make to a politician's office should make a reference to that.
DesertRat
(27,995 posts)Like it or not, WE are the majority.
Demsrule86
(68,667 posts)divisive primary.
SickOfTheOnePct
(7,290 posts)Obama beat McCain by ~9.5 million votes
Obama beat Romney by ~5 million votes
Nixon beat McGovern by ~18 million votes
2 million isn't even near the top.
Unprecedented for a candidate who lost the electoral vote? In raw numbers yes, but not in percentages...she would come in third, possibly second in that category.
This isn't to diminish the fact that she won the popular vote, but rather to point out that her margin isn't by any means "unprecedented", and certainly not so great that a call for electors to go against the voters in their respective states should be heeded.
JMO, YMMV.
uponit7771
(90,364 posts)SickOfTheOnePct
(7,290 posts)grossproffit
(5,591 posts)SickOfTheOnePct
(7,290 posts)Others who have won the popular vote but lost the Electoral College have won by much larger margins, percentage-wise, than did Hillary.
grossproffit
(5,591 posts)SickOfTheOnePct
(7,290 posts)Although she might end up beating Hayes' margin.
But what does it matter when it happened? You do realize that "unprecedented" means it's never happened before, right?
uponit7771
(90,364 posts)uponit7771
(90,364 posts)Wilms
(26,795 posts)TrekLuver
(2,573 posts)Patiod
(11,816 posts)I'll take it.
Demsrule86
(68,667 posts)The fact she won the popular vote so convincingly makes this election reek of fraud and shoots down any mandate.
Pathwalker
(6,598 posts)cough, cough.
grossproffit
(5,591 posts)Pathwalker
(6,598 posts)n/t
treestar
(82,383 posts)anything is done by the Orange Rat that he really does not have the support of the majority of the people. It can be used against him. Certainly the Rs would if the other way round.
Response to Wilms (Reply #2)
emulatorloo This message was self-deleted by its author.
marylandblue
(12,344 posts)Why does it take so long to count votes there?
Hekate
(90,793 posts)JI7
(89,264 posts)Glassunion
(10,201 posts)Retrograde
(10,156 posts)More than half of the voters opt for voting by mail, which is great, as there's a paper trail. However, each of those ballots has to have its signature verified, then opened and fed into the scanners, which means at some point at least one human being has to be involved. And there are a LOT of registered voters in California - my own county, Santa Clara, has more than in the state of Wyoming (and so far 78% of them voted!). Then there are all the provisional ballots, and any damaged ballots, that have to be looked at individually.
California is a huge state - roughly 40 million people, give or take. And we make a point of counting every valid vote and ensuring that the counts are fair. Just because the media want a story doesn't mean the California election officials should do a sloppy job.
grossproffit
(5,591 posts)LisaM
(27,830 posts)This is the best source I've found:
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/133Eb4qQmOxNvtesw2hdVns073R68EZx4SfCnP4IGQf8/htmlview?usp=sharing&sle=true
FrenchieCat
(68,867 posts)ProudProgressiveNow
(6,129 posts)Tarheel_Dem
(31,240 posts)zstat
(55 posts)Track his site. I can't vouch for its authenticity, but numbers are numbers.
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/133Eb4qQmOxNvtesw2hdVns073R68EZx4SfCnP4IGQf8/htmlview?usp=sharing&sle=true
If that does not work, enter "2016 National Popular Vote Tracker" into your search engine.
Dem2
(8,168 posts)1.3% lead. And he's already showing indications that he's incompetent/doesn't care for the job. He should concede to Hillary and help repair the country.