04-23-2017, 03:58 PM
(04-23-2017, 03:15 PM)Dill Wrote: I missed the post in which someone said Clinton crushed Trump in the popular vote.
The "crushing" comment wasnt made by anyone on this board. I was speaking from broader observation.
Quote:But 2.9 million is not a negligible margin. and it had to be stacked on 60 million other votes to get there. That's a lot of Americans.
Yeah, and Trump had 60 million votes stacked his way too, which means "a lot of Americans" voted for him too. 2% is pretty negligible and not impressive to me but whatever I guess.
Quote:People may legitimately question Trump's legitimacy in an election marred by foreign interference, unusual FBI behavior, and active disinformation campaigns--not all of which originated from Russia. That doesn't mean the election was not legal and subject to legal challenge. This is not like the last time a terrible Republican candidate lost the popular vote, won the electoral college, and started the country on a path to war and recession. That one was about the electoral college.
People can question whatever they want, but what can they actually prove in terms of who was swayed by what? And how many Americans were actually swayed?
Saying "people were swayed by Russia" is a pretty empty statement without significant voter data to back it up
Quote:PS working from Trump's percentage of the vote, how many Americans did not want him to be president? I would not normally bother counting up the dissidents, but I want to point out it is not a tactic that works in your favor.
The point is neither was overwhelmingly popular and neither had a "majority" of Americans vote for them, rather they shared in the majority. I used Clinton as the example to nullify the idea that the majority of Americans voted for her because that's how people view the popular vote, but thats not what the popular vote is a representation of.
