Exclusive: Putin-linked think tank drew up plan to sway 2016 U.S. election - document

[GMDino]

(04-21-2017, 04:11 PM)Matt_Crimson Wrote: The issue here is that when people say the "majority" of Americans voted for Clinton it creates this illusion that a staggering amount of people voted for Clinton throughout the nation rather than Trunp. But when you take into account all the States and the counties within them, the popularity for Trump stretches farther than the popularity of Clinton.

So, Clinton being "popular" is meaningless when you can't actually apply that label to the majority of people that live in other states besides California.

http://www.cnn.com/2016/12/21/politics/donald-trump-hillary-clinton-popular-vote-final-count/

Quote:The Democrat outpaced President-elect Donald Trump by almost 2.9 million votes, with 65,844,954 (48.2%) to his 62,979,879 (46.1%), according to revised and certified final election results from all 50 states and the District of Columbia.

Clinton's 2.1% margin ranks third among defeated candidates, according to statistics from US Elections Atlas. Andrew Jackson won by more than 10% in 1824 but was denied the presidency, which went to John Quincy Adams. In 1876, Samuel Tilden received 3% more votes than Rutherford B. Hayes, who eventually triumphed by one electoral vote.

I understand how the electoral college works and why she lost...but 2.9 million more voters voted for her.  I don't care if they all lived in the same state (they didn't), but if that isn't a "staggering amount" what is?

As soon as Trump's investigation into those 3 million illegal voters is over and all those votes are thrown out (any day now, I'm sure) then you will have a case I suppose.