Donald Trump

[Plays By Sense Of Smell]

It's a relativity thang. Trump didn't need to spend as much as Hilary mainly as much of his field operations' were free - thanks to his inglorious foghorn of a mouth he got a several billion dollars of media coverage for next to nothing.

 

[Plays By Sense Of Smell]

Are you an idiot?? Human life is a footnote in global history. For billions of years there was nothing but primordial swamp. Vegetation will die out. We will probably first. Fuck Brian Cox, David Attenborough said so and he's legit. M.y idol

Wow! Did D-dog really say that about Cox? He's really gone down in my estimation.

 

[r.soleofsalford]

Using huffpost as a news source...

Can't buy the presidency either, as Hillary found out.

if you dont see the irony in your post god bless you.

 

[SkyBlueTX]

OK, I accept I didn't realise how "detestable Hillary is", but how the hell didn't the Democrat party organisation? Did they assume anybody could beat a populist bigot with a bad hair do; did they believe Hillary could do the job in spite of the baggage; or were they so far removed from real life that they just didn't know what they were doing?

I think all three you name are factors in some measure. It doesn't matter that Clinton won the popular vote by a wide margin in California and New York, that's not our system. The candidate has to be able to capture enough votes in the critical swing states that are not predetermined as blue or red based on ideology. Voters in those states tend to look at the candidates rather than vote straight party, of course voting in their own self-interest first and foremost. Obama easily energized his core base but also had broader appeal than McCain or Romney. This time round, the reverse was true to the extent that Clinton could not stimulate sufficient interest outside of the core to appeal to voters and lost states that you would expect to go democratic. The interesting thing this time was that the republicans also failed to put forth a viable candidate out of the primaries and a complete outsider populist/independent running as a republican ended up winning against the odds. They should be asking questions too, of course, but won't because on paper they have a congressional majority with a "republican" in the Oval Office.
Put another way: Did Leceister win the league because they won it, or did everyone else lose it?

 

[SkyBlueTX]

1.8 million votes more for Hilary and rising by the Americans

Source? I looked online and could not verify that. They are still counting absentee votes and mail-in ballots in west coast states and the final numbers won't be known for a while. However, it's a moot point because straight popular vote is not how we elect our president.

 

[Cheadle_hulmeBlue]

1.8 million votes more for Hilary and rising by the Americans

not the best picture ( hopefully all correct swell) . but it shows how much support there was for trump. hilary only won the popular vote because of california and a few other big cities. overall though the democrats got destroyed. its besides the point anyway you dont win on the popular vote and if that was the case most of amercia would get ignored in favor of new york and california.

 

[Dave Ewing's Back 'eader]

Source? I looked online and could not verify that. They are still counting absentee votes and mail-in ballots in west coast states and the final numbers won't be known for a while. However, it's a moot point because straight popular vote is not how we elect our president.

Straight popular vote is not the way many get elected. I don't know but I should imagine that few of the skunks in Westminster were elected by a majority of eligible voters, nor by a majority of those who actually voted. There will be more than a handful of MPs in the House of Commons where a majority of constituents voted for someone else!

 

[SWP's back]

There will be more than a handful of MPs in the House of Commons where a majority of constituents voted for someone else!

Not true.

Some other people (i.e. Several people) possibly but there are no MPs that received less votes than one other person.

 

[aguero93:20]

Not true.

Some other people (i.e. Several people) possibly but there are no MPs that received less votes than one other person.

There's probably a few if you were to count first preference votes only but it would be rare enough with FPTP. It's more common with the 4 and 5 seater constituencies in the PR system where the final elected candidates get over the line on 3rd and 4th preference votes.

 

[gordondaviesmoustache]

hilary only won the popular vote because of california and a few other big cities.

Usiain Bolt only won the Olympic 100 metres because he was faster than everyone else.