A new poll shows 52% of Republicans actually think Trump won the popular vote

ok, I misunderstood what you were trying to say.

.
no need to make anything up. I've repeatedly stated he is the duly elected president, and the only reason I bring up he received less votes is to refute the nonsense of a trump mandate, or that a majority of voters rejected Clinton. I don't know how much clearer I can make that.

I am. You jumped in here at some point and chose to challenge me. My position has remained the same.

 

Trump won the popular vote of the electoral college. What is the big deal?

 

Or, perhaps like a football team that declares that it should be considered the winner, since it had accumulated more first downs--perhaps even more total yards--even though it came up on the short end of the actual score...

 

Prop 8 was clearly not about marriage. There were no equal protection issues at all. Which is why you are still unable to offer any language from the constitution or the case to support your position.

 

The popular vote in CA does not really count. See Prop 8.

 

Only because of CA. Republicans knew their vote was meaningless in the Presidential race, and the choice in the Senate was between two Democrats, so they didn't turnout and Hillary had a big, meaningless, lopsided score in CA. Dumb Hillary was campaigning in AZ as she was losing WI, PA and MI.

Not Smart!

 

Lol..............

except for those of same sex couples of course. Which is why prop 8 no longer exists.

14th amendment, equal protection clause. you were given the ruling. I can't make you read it.

- - - Updated - - -

popular votes can't violate the US constitution, as prop 8 did.

 

So far, no language from any source supporting your position. What a surprise!

 

CA Voters Don't Matter. Everyone knows that.

 

Gee, sorry.

I just did not realize that it was to be considered a major sin (or even a minor sin) to have "jumped in" and "challenge[d]" you.

 

They do, but the Electoral College was designed to ensure that a Regional Candidate didn't carry a National Election, and it worked perfectly. Portions of CA are massively out of step with the rest of the nation and the Electoral College worked perfectly to protect the nation from their mad ideological zeal.

 

Say what? That's like saying, without Texas, Hillary would have won the electoral vote.

 

it isn't. I'm just pointing out Clinton received more votes, and I've stated my reason for doing so.

 

Superficially, that may seem to be the case.

But there are a couple of (rather significant) differences.

For openers, Donald Trump did not win Texas by almost 4.5 million votes.

Moreover, I have very little use for California. (I truly hope that the so-called Calexit does, indeed, go forward; 49 states would be just fine by me.)

 

CA voters do not matter because their elections are routinely nullified by the political class. Voters who are routinely disenfranchised have been degraded and can, IMO, be disregarded by those who respect the democratic process.

 

The electoral vote in each state counts. The national popular vote does not count which is why candidates do not campaign to win that vote. If they did campaign to win the national popular vote those campaigns would be very different and concentrate in population centers even whre they had no chance of prevailing.

If Trump had run a few ads in LA, Chicago, NYT, and a few other DP cities he would have easily flipped the popular vote.
But why would he bother to do that when the popular vote is irrelevant?

 

I'd like to see more States adopt the ME and NE model of awarding ECV by Congressional District or even proportionally like many are in the primaries. That would give everyone a greater opportunity to speak in Presidential elections. Each State is free to do so now. It would weaken the two-party system that is built on the winner take all approach so the leaders of both parties would fight the change. The GOP has shown that the base can whip their leadership, sadly the Dem base failed to whip theirs and so went on to lose to Trump.

Sad!

 

100% of Hillary voters thought she was going to win.

 

We are a country of STATES, why shouldn't we speak as STATES which have their own interests and demographics and issues?

 

That might be a good reform. Yes, the bipartisan political class would oppose it.

The DP core base did, in effect, overthrow their party establishment by voting for Trump. Remember Trump was opposed by the RP establishment - he owes them nothing less than a swift kick in the butt.

If Trump can cut the size and power of government and provide opportunity to the poor trapped in DP cities the core base of both parties may stay united under Trump - for 8 more years.

The voucher alternative to government programs and agencies could become very popular - depends on the size of the vouchers and the cuts that pay for them.

I also think the small government left and right would prefer grand juries to most regulators. Trump may be able to pitch a far bigger tent than the DPe/RPe can imagine.

 

THAT is an EXCELLENT point!

And it will do them good. One Trump Tweet Ass Kickin and Ryan dropped the stupid ethics "reform" like a hot potato.

Yup!

Ditto!

Well Stated!

 

Let's hope Trump is thinking huge and out of the box. He could run the table on the DC mob.

 

These wouldn't be the same pollsters who thought Hillary was going to win the election would they be? I mean haven't we learned enough about polling at this point to know its at best an inexact science and should be taken with a grain of salt.

 

nobody has been disenfranchised and no election has been nullified by a political class.

 

Prop 8. The election was nullified by the corrupt political class that controls government.