Posted on 11/15/2016 5:13:05 AM PST by woofer2425
Who won the 2016 presidential popular vote? One source says that Clinton won, another says that Trump won. What is a good source with a final answer to this question?
Wait until the absentee ballots are counted.
It may never be possible to know for sure.
Some states (like California) don’t bother to count absentee votes unless the margin of victory is less than the number of remaining ballots.
They need to count all the absentee votes, including the overseas military votes.
Until and unless that is done, we won’t know.
Then there’s the issue of millions of illegal aliens voting, voting machines that flipped from Trump to Clinton, activists voting multiple times, etc. Probably no way to discount the fraudulent votes.
Subtract all illegal alien votes and Trump won handedly.
That's a real strong argument for the Electoral College. If the problem areas can't be isolated from impacting the outcome, there would never be an outcome. Challenges, recounts, situations landing in the courts would NEVER be settled.
He won the popular vote in the States that mattered.
Trump won, period.
Votes from non-citizens and dead voters are all invalid.
Haven’t seen a “good” source yet, and most still have old numbers. AP are supposed to be less than a day old, but still show Clinton.
We’ll know eventually. I don’t know how many military ballots are still out there with the rest of the absentees, and no one is going to look into fraud at all — even if they do, it will be after the fact.
Maybe that's an unintended albeit benign quality of the Electoral College. It's a bulwark against more concerted attempts at fraud.
The system was designed in part to protect us from electing a dictator. The popular vote can lead to a dictatorship.
When the Drudge report says it, you can count on it. As of yet, they have not.
There are still absentee ballots to be counted. I understand as the count now stands Trump leads by about 700,000 votes. But we can count on the media to continue to use the vote counts from election night that had hillary winning the popular vote just so they can continue with that narrative.
Everything I have seen has Hillary winning the popular vote. That only means that Hillary wasted her money in states that did not matter to the election. She had to spend 1.2 billion dollars somewhere. But Trump was more targeted. He spent his time rallying in states that would win him the election.
If the popular vote mattered at all, Trump would have won it. Don’t think that the country is democrat and Trump just found some sliver that would give him the White House. Republicans own 2/3s of the state houses and governorships. And of course, they successfully defended the Senate and the House of Representatives. So this is a republican nation. The dems just haven’t figured it out yet.
Well, if the MSM says Clinton won the popular vote, you can be reasonably sure that it was actually President-elect Trump who won the popular vote. That’s not sarcasm, that is simple recognition that the MSM has a history of lying about virtually everything regarding the Clintons in particular and liberals in general.
Last I read, Clinton was ahead slightly. But we KNOW (verified) that 3 million votes were cast illegally. And that represents only 42% of what they SUSPECT were votes that were cast illegally.
Take those votes out.....and she loses...by a bunch.
If a Trump Popular Vote Win fell in the woods, would the MSM report it?
I don’t think so. If they don’t report it, and they wont even discuss it, then history itself will do the reporting: Hillary, like Al Gore was cheated out of the Presidency by an antiquated election system dreamed up by a bunch of old men hundreds of years ago.
You don’t like that? Get rid of the MSM, 95% of the teachers in this country and start over.
Clinton won California by 2.6 million but the country by 600,000. This means that Trump won the entire country other than California by 2 million votes. This is not something that our so-called news media will want known.
Exactly! It's a shock absorber against cheating. Here's an example:
Let's say that in one state, the liberals manufacture 100,000 votes. If the popular vote chooses the President, then that would be added to the national total, and could well sway the election. However, under the current system, the 100,000 votes would be added to the state total. So, 1) at best, the fraud might have no impact on the election; and 2) at worst, it would only sway the state's electoral votes. Beyond that, it would have no impact. OTOH, every manufactured vote goes toward the popular vote total, and using that to determine the President would be a disaster.
So, it's a lot harder to rig the election under the current electoral system. It would be even harder to rig the results using an electoral model in which each Congressional district decided its own elector, but with all the gerrymandering out there, it might not be the best idea.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.