It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

More Americans voted for HRC than any other losing presidential candidate in US history

page: 5
12
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 21 2016 @ 10:37 PM
link   
a reply to: Indigo5

"More Americans voted for HRC than any other losing presidential candidate in US history"

Well considering the U.S. is the most populated it has ever been in its history why should this little factoid be surprising to anyone?

It only stands to reason that as the population grows so will the number of votes for the winner AND loser of the presidential election.

This thread is just silly.

ETA:

Ahh here is what I was looking for.

List of every presidential candidate and how many votes they received

EVERY SINGLE LOSER save maybe two had more votes than the previous loser, so we could say "More Americans voted for ........ than any other losing presidential candidate in US history" every single election.

Now you see why I think the OP is silly and pointless.
edit on 12/21/2016 by Alien Abduct because: (no reason given)




posted on Dec, 21 2016 @ 11:00 PM
link   
Here is a little factoid that is about as useless as the OP...

Donald Trump got more votes THAN EVERY SINGLE PRESIDENT IN HISTORY (except for Obama).



posted on Dec, 21 2016 @ 11:47 PM
link   
a reply to: Alien Abduct


EVERY SINGLE LOSER save maybe two had more votes than the previous loser, so we could say "More Americans voted for ........ than any other losing presidential candidate in US history" every single election. Now you see why I think the OP is silly and pointless.

I wonder why they are not counting the number of people that did not vote for her. I think that number is more telling.



posted on Dec, 21 2016 @ 11:49 PM
link   

originally posted by: Alien Abduct
Here is a little factoid that is about as useless as the OP...

Donald Trump got more votes THAN EVERY SINGLE PRESIDENT IN HISTORY (except for Obama).


And yet he still got less then Clinton. So he is the biggest loser in Presidential History. Crazy how the GOP cant get a president in without getting the Popular vote anymore.



posted on Dec, 21 2016 @ 11:51 PM
link   
a reply to: Indigo5

That's Awesome!

I guess if you're going to be a loser you might as well be a big loser.



posted on Dec, 21 2016 @ 11:52 PM
link   
No one cares what Cali wants.

Hillary lost hugely, bigly and finally.

Lost a bunch of EC votes too.

More than any other woman potus candidate in history too. So there is that for her resume.

Lots of firsts for hillary.

The only woman candidate to run while 5 FBI investigations were ongoing.

Breaking records left and right!

So 60 mil people are happy she lost. That's the only thing that matters.





(post by TDawg61 removed for political trolling and baiting)

posted on Dec, 22 2016 @ 12:08 AM
link   

originally posted by: Swills
a reply to: Indigo5

Just America lowering the bar for POTUS. A reality TV personality, failed business man, and con artist is now the leader of the free world and commander of the most powerful military this world has ever seen.

God help us all.


Yep, just goes to show you how much of a pond scum bottom feeder his opponent was. I agree, the bars been set low alright.



posted on Dec, 22 2016 @ 12:09 AM
link   
a reply to: Pyle

Trump didn't lose though. He will be President in a months time.

Then he can start a full investigation related to Hillarys massive vote fraud. Funny how the recounts suddenly ended when that started coming to light.



posted on Dec, 22 2016 @ 12:12 AM
link   

originally posted by: Indigo5

originally posted by: EightAhoy

Yeah, spent more money, too. Makes the loss even more embarrassing, and scam-like.


I kind of view it as...HRC was a really bad candidate for the Dems to run...And Trump lost the popular vote to her by a literally historic margin. THAT is embarrassing.

Hell if his digital campaign manager Brad Parscale hadn't figured out how to Promise Coal Miners jobs in specific districts (that Trump will never give them) to flip states like PA etc. he never would have won.


Coal is King in Pennsylvania lost its luster after the Marcellus play got legs. And boy did it ever get legs. EIA.gov

Pennsylvania's natural gas production was more than eight times larger in 2015 than in 2010 because of development of the Marcellus Shale.


Plus, two of the three PA counties Trump turned from blue to red, don't even have coal mines--active or otherwise: Erie, Northampton. The third county he flipped mines anthracite: Luzerne. It is one of the sole regions in the nation that mines anthracite yet still only employs ~ 1650. Hardly enough to swing the state.

The Trump rhetoric on coal played particularly well in WV (a sister state) and Kentucky. Both states rank above PA in coal production. And I'll give you the "how to Promise Coal Miners jobs in specific districts." But for those Blue Dog Democrat voters it really was more about what Obama did to coal, than what Trump promised.

Obama's regulatory coal policies will be rolled back enough to *help* the coal industry, and then coal production will rebound, not what it was pre-Obama, but enough to get some miners back to work -- PA and WV and KY miners who didn't transition from the mine to the gas pad when the Marcellus play was humming. It is cheaper to bring shale gas to market right now, than to bring coal to market. That's another reason mines are closing, laying off, and downsizing: They cannot get operating capital when the cost to bring coal to market is more expensive than what the market will pay.

As someone who brushes up against politics in my business, I was more intrigued by the mechanics of the campaign versus the rhetoric of the campaign. I decided early on to do a write-in, and only watched one debate: Pence v. Kaine. But troughout the campaign I was often perplexed trying to understand why Trump was holding rallies in particular areas since certain counties were traditional blue strongholds.

Finally I brought up both the 2012 and 2008 PA General Election results map and realized, "Ahh ha! He's campaigning on the periphery of pink and red counties that abut light blue counties. On election night, three of those blue counties fell. It was then I decided to support Trump hoping that if he surrounds himself with the same brains behind the curtain who understood the end game -- the Electoral College -- then those same brains might play a role in the formation of a Trump Administration.

Losing the popular vote is irrelevant to me. My respect was awarded on strategy and accomplishing the goal with fewer people and less money. Standard business tactics: Work smarter, faster, cheaper and do a better job than your competition. And the popular vote is not the mandate. The mandate is who's sent to Congress in tandem with who won the Electoral College. That's undeniable in 2016.

An aspect of the campaign I don't think got enough attention was paid manpower. In September Hillary had 800 paid campaign staff versus Trump's 80. Imagine if he runs the country on those same ratios: 10% of the normal. Okay, that is absurd, I get it. But whether you love him or hate him, isn't even a smidgen of respect warranted based on strategy, alone? In 2008 I begrudgingly gave Obama a nod based on David Axelrod's performance.

Hopefully in four years you can say, "Wow. Was I ever wrong about the Orange Beast," and you'll blow him a kiss.




posted on Dec, 22 2016 @ 12:13 AM
link   

originally posted by: Ohanka
a reply to: Pyle

Trump didn't lose though. He will be President in a months time.

Then he can start a full investigation related to Hillarys massive vote fraud. Funny how the recounts suddenly ended when that started coming to light.


See he did lose the popular vote. He lost it by more then 2.8 million votes from Americans from every state. No president in history has lost by that many votes and still become president. It means his "mandate" is nothing but BS. It means he didn't win in a landslide. He basically is tyranny of the minority personified.



posted on Dec, 22 2016 @ 12:15 AM
link   
a reply to: Ohanka

I'm telling you, there is a golden nugget somewhere buried within a California recount.

If he can expose the ramped voting fraud of the illegal & deceased citizens that is being carried out by the left it will deliver a crushing blow to the voting power of California in future elections.

Everything is starting to balance itself out, I hope.



posted on Dec, 22 2016 @ 12:20 AM
link   

originally posted by: Pyle

originally posted by: Ohanka
a reply to: Pyle

Trump didn't lose though. He will be President in a months time.

Then he can start a full investigation related to Hillarys massive vote fraud. Funny how the recounts suddenly ended when that started coming to light.


See he did lose the popular vote. He lost it by more then 2.8 million votes from Americans from every state. No president in history has lost by that many votes and still become president. It means his "mandate" is nothing but BS. It means he didn't win in a landslide. He basically is tyranny of the minority personified.


How many times does it have to be explained to you that Ca and NY is not the voice of America?



posted on Dec, 22 2016 @ 12:23 AM
link   

originally posted by: DanDanDat
What I don't understand is why people assume the "popular vote count" is a valid count?

No candidate in the 2016 election nor any one on the chart from the OP has attempted to win the popular vote; they have all attempted to win the Electoral College.

Wining the popular vote vs the Electoral College requires very different strategies; and since no one in the history of the US has attempted to win the popular vote we can not possibly know how many votes they would have gotten under such a system.

It is entirely possible that had popular vote been our system that nether Trump or Clinton would have won their respective primaries.

Added:

Not to mention that voting patterns would undoubtedly change if the system where based on popular vote vs Electoral College. Many people in easy red and blue states don't bother voting already knowing what the outcome will be.


This should explain it to anyone that doesn't understand. Well done.
edit on 22-12-2016 by Fullblast because: Had no reply



posted on Dec, 22 2016 @ 12:30 AM
link   

originally posted by: mtnshredder

originally posted by: Pyle

originally posted by: Ohanka
a reply to: Pyle

Trump didn't lose though. He will be President in a months time.

Then he can start a full investigation related to Hillarys massive vote fraud. Funny how the recounts suddenly ended when that started coming to light.


See he did lose the popular vote. He lost it by more then 2.8 million votes from Americans from every state. No president in history has lost by that many votes and still become president. It means his "mandate" is nothing but BS. It means he didn't win in a landslide. He basically is tyranny of the minority personified.


How many times does it have to be explained to you that Ca and NY is not the voice of America?


Well good news most of Clintons votes didnt come from CA and NY! But because they agreed with people from CA and NY their votes don't count?



posted on Dec, 22 2016 @ 12:33 AM
link   
a reply to: Fullblast

Neither ran to win the popular but Clinton won it anyways. Without the EC many more peoples voices would be heard. Right now a DEM in TX counts as much as a GOP vote in CA, Zero.



posted on Dec, 22 2016 @ 12:42 AM
link   
a reply to: Pyle

and that wouldn't change if there wasn't the Electoral College.

In fact the outcome would be New York, California and Texas would dictate everything, drowning out the other 47 states.



posted on Dec, 22 2016 @ 12:47 AM
link   

originally posted by: Ohanka
a reply to: Pyle

and that wouldn't change if there wasn't the Electoral College.

In fact the outcome would be New York, California and Texas would dictate everything, drowning out the other 47 states.


Apposed to Florida, Virginia, Pennsylvania we have now?



posted on Dec, 22 2016 @ 01:30 AM
link   
a reply to: Indigo5

Nice thread. Good work. However, I do have to ask....so what? The system is designed this way to prevent mob rule. Everyone who parrots the popular vote difference seems to forget this fact. So clinton won the vote by 2.1%. That is nothing. Trump won 2622 of 3112 counties. I have to wonder why popular vote supporters refuse to acknowledge this. The so called popular vote argument loses a lot of steam when the winner of the election carried 30 states and 2622 counties. How can anyone support the popular vote argument when the loser of the election carried 20 states and 490 counties?


Slightly OT: The electoral college system we have is light years ahead of a single nationwide election for president. Personally I wish the media would stop emphasizing the nationwide popular vote(forever). It has no influence on the electoral system. It has no influence on the individual state elections. The constant harping of it does nothing positive for the nation.



posted on Dec, 22 2016 @ 01:39 AM
link   

originally posted by: Humbaba
a reply to: Indigo5

Nice thread. Good work. However, I do have to ask....so what? The system is designed this way to prevent mob rule. Everyone who parrots the popular vote difference seems to forget this fact. So clinton won the vote by 2.1%. That is nothing. Trump won 2622 of 3112 counties. I have to wonder why popular vote supporters refuse to acknowledge this. The so called popular vote argument loses a lot of steam when the winner of the election carried 30 states and 2622 counties. How can anyone support the popular vote argument when the loser of the election carried 20 states and 490 counties?


Slightly OT: The electoral college system we have is light years ahead of a single nationwide election for president. Personally I wish the media would stop emphasizing the nationwide popular vote(forever). It has no influence on the electoral system. It has no influence on the individual state elections. The constant harping of it does nothing positive for the nation.


I am not sure why we still use the EC it is a vestige of the building of the Union. It was partly designed to help slave states retain power along with the 3/5 compromise. Yet we don't have slaves anymore.



new topics

top topics



 
12
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join