More votes than any losing candidate in history
Hillary Clinton swamped Donald Trump in votes.
Click here for reuse options!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.
Copyright 2016 Liberaland
23 responses to More votes than any losing candidate in history
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Suzanne McFly December 21st, 2016 at 21:24
This will be the textbook case of why the EC should be demolished.
bpollen December 22nd, 2016 at 03:45
Turns “one citizen, one vote” and “representational democracy” on it’s head. At least in terms of the Executive Office.
Suzanne McFly December 22nd, 2016 at 08:02
Definitely.
Robert M. Snyder December 21st, 2016 at 21:25
If you favor eliminating the Electoral College, then why not apply the same logic to football?
Winning a game is like winning a state. It doesn’t matter how many points you scored in that game. As long as you beat the other team, that game is simply counted as a win.
One team could win more games and then win the Super Bowl while some OTHER team actually scored more TOTAL POINTS during the season.
So as long as we’re eliminating the Electoral College, I say let’s eliminate the Super Bowl as well. If elections are decided on the basis of total votes cast, then football championships should be decided on the basis of total points scored during the season.
Who’s with me?
Buford2k11 December 21st, 2016 at 21:57
foosball?…whats this foosball? it is like the NHRA…every event, you accumulate points awarded in each race…the driver with the most points at the last race wins the championship..
Obewon December 22nd, 2016 at 00:06
NP. 165 EC vote states have already agreed to award all of their votes to the national popular vote winner.
The National Popular Vote Interstate Compact (NPVIC) is an agreement among a group of U.S. states and the District of Columbia to award all their respective electoral votes to whichever presidential candidate wins the overall popular vote in the 50 states and the District of Columbia. The compact is designed to ensure that the candidate who wins the most popular votes is elected president, and it will come into effect only when it will guarantee that outcome. As of 2016, it has been adopted by ten states and the District of Columbia. Together, they have 165 (Md 10 = 165) electoral votes, becoming law when 270 EC vote states agree. http://www.nationalpopularvote.com/status
Robert M. Snyder December 22nd, 2016 at 00:49
People who support this could live to regret it. Nobody knows what would have happened if Hillary and Donald had both campaigned with the goal of winning the popular vote. They certainly would have used different strategies.
Why don’t all of these states go one step further and schedule all of their primary elections for the same day? Then in BOTH elections, the candidates can focus on the needs of the nation as a whole, instead of playing a chess game with all of the states.
If I were a candidate running for president, I would much rather adopt a consistent, national strategy right at the start. If people want to eliminate the EC, I have no particular objection. But I would be disappointed if the primaries continue to be sequenced. Back in 2000, I preferred McCain over Bush, but by the time my state (PA) got to vote in the primary, McCain had already lost. I felt “disenfranchised”. (LOL)
It is my understanding that each party is free to make its own rules for the primary. But if enough people wanted all of the primaries on a single day, maybe the parties would agree to it.
One advantage to simplifying the system is that young people will be a little less shocked by the complexity that we have today.
If people want to eliminate the EC and/or simplify the primaries, I say “Bring it on!”. I see no reason why Republicans can’t do just as well or better under those rules. Under today’s rules, Republicans don’t spend much time in heavily blue states. And Republican voters living in heavily blue states have little incentive to show up at the polls. If we move to a popular vote system, you might see a lot more Republican voters showing up at the polls in heavily blue states, because now their votes will make a difference.
Be careful what you wish for. You just might get it!
Obewon December 22nd, 2016 at 00:53
EC: There is a Klansman living in the White House 1/20/17 at 12:01 PM EST.
bpollen December 22nd, 2016 at 03:31
I always confuse the way we choose our leaders in a representative democracy with football. I also confuse voting with creme brule, and politics in general with magnolias.
Why don’t we apply the same logic to football? When was a game decided by an electoral college? Is this a new rule?
“The judgement on the field stands. In spite of the Cowboys receiving more points, the game is rewarded to the game to the Denver Broncos. The Broncos win the Super Bowl!”
trees December 21st, 2016 at 23:48
It’s unimportant, and has nothing to do with who won, or why……
And yet….
Liberals can’t stop proclaiming Hillary as the winner of the popular vote.
She didn’t win the election, and truth be told, she didn’t even get close.
She lost to a political novice, who spent almost nothing on campaign ads.
Clinton outspent Trump by $380,000,000…….
And lost.
But libs, please explain why the people of California matter more than any other state?
I get the distinct feeling that if the opposite were true, if it were Trump that won the popular vote, but lost the election, that liberals would be praising the virtue of the electoral college.
I mean, you were all in love with constitutionalism, when you were discussing the freedom that individual electors had in deciding whom they would cast their vote for….
Federalist this, Federalist that, Federalist the other…
Now it’s….
“WE’VE GOT TO ABOLISH THE ELECTORAL COLLEGE!!!”
Obewon December 22nd, 2016 at 00:21
Fake news as usual. But the EC is abolished via 165 EC vote states already agreeing to award all of their votes to the national popular vote winner. 105 more EC vote states are required for implementation. See NPVIC below.
Trump Disbursements $320,647,647 | Cash On Hand $7,605,002
Clinton Disbursements $563,014,233 | Cash On Hand $838,649 11/28/16.
“Clinton outspent Trump by $380,000,000…….”-Twigs faux news debunked. http://www.fec.gov/disclosurep/pnational.do
trees December 22nd, 2016 at 00:57
http://www.ibtimes.com/how-much-did-trump-spend-his-campaign-beat-hillary-clinton-total-money-raised-2016-2444150
oldfart December 22nd, 2016 at 01:01
Dated 11/9/16
“It appears Clinton’s fundraising prowess helped her claim the popular vote, but not the electoral college.”
Next.
oldfart December 22nd, 2016 at 00:44
“Liberals can’t stop proclaiming Hillary as the winner of the popular vote.”
We like facts.
No majority, No mandate, No landslide…
No sh*t she lost.
You don’t.
“Clinton outspent Trump by $380,000,000…….”
C’mon Trees, get over your obsession.
Tell me how tRump is going to make America great again.
I could use a good laugh.
bpollen December 22nd, 2016 at 03:25
Still got that aversion to the fact, eh? What IS it that gets your panties SO in a wad?
trees December 22nd, 2016 at 12:50
I have no aversion to the fact that she did not gather enough votes to win the election.
You, however, can’t seem to stop proclaiming pure silliness…
“She almost won!!!”
lol…
bpollen December 22nd, 2016 at 15:27
“I have no aversion to the fact that she did not gather enough votes to win the election.”
Simply and demonstrably untrue. If you had NO aversion to that fact, you wouldn’t get your panties so twisted when it is brought up. Someone without an aversion would not feel the need to rail against it at EVERY opportunity. If you didn’t care about it, you wouldn’t put so much time and effort into denying, deriding, belittling, and countering the point. If you DIDN’T care, you wouldn’t bother.
“She almost won!!!”
It’s ALWAYS so much easier to put words into other people’s mouths instead of actually addressing the REAL words, eh? Please… show me when I said she “almost won!!!” I posit that this is just another example of strawman arguments you so often resort to. Which is a clear sign that you don’t have facts and rational and deductive reasoning to use, so you gotta devolve into LYING. You seem to have a real propensity for it. Remember when you said that *I* claimed that Hillary won the EC? Remember? I do. I remember when you lie about me. Really doesn’t do much for your rep in my eyes…
trees December 22nd, 2016 at 16:36
bpollen December 23rd, 2016 at 03:15
“I really could care less…”
Oh, yeah, THAT’S plausible.
Another troll tactic – projection.
“It’s not me with his panties in a knot, it’s you. That why I have to make an issue out of it constantly! I don’t care and it’s YOU who cares! Not me, no way! And you got cooties.”
Of course, I’m paraphrasing, but that’s the message you are sending. Irrespective of your protestations to the contrary. Yeah, a statement of fact would NEVER pass the lips of a Reich winger. That’s a liberal thang, as you point out.
trees December 21st, 2016 at 23:52
More votes than any losing candidate in history
I guess we could say that she’s the biggest loser of all time???
Or…
All time greatest loser???
Obewon December 22nd, 2016 at 00:02
Just 46% voted for Putin’s puppet. Herr Twitler doesn’t even have a teeny tiny mandate. https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/a01a796812cdcf523aa0afebe2e59d7e55875e8b9a1d8c84d166006828567ebf.jpg
labman57 December 22nd, 2016 at 02:50
In TrumpLand, losing by 3 million votes is a “landslide victory” and constitutes a “mandate”.
bpollen December 22nd, 2016 at 03:24
It’s historical like….