It has been explained multiple times that Hillary did not win a majority of the vote. The horse has been led to water.
I think that two or more of these things can be true at the same time. Yes, there are black people who voted for Obama because he was black and women who voted for Clinton because she was a woman, but I doubt that very few of these people respectively would have voted for either candidate if they didn’t feel that they were in some way going to represent their own personal interests, those of their communities, and the larger country as a whole better than their opposition. People inherently see things from their own perspective better than they see it from someone else’s vantage point - there are after all plenty of people who vote for white male candidates because, well, they’re white males and their minds have little imagination to go beyond that presidential prototype.
It is probably fair to say that Hillary Clinton got free passes from feminists, but that doesn’t mean that she wasn’t herself the victim of sexism.
Technically and otherwise, you’re correct, but I think it’s beyond obvious that the real point they are trying to make is that she won more votes (a clear plurality) than Donald Trump.
Savonarola! Hehehehe. Good one. 
If things were different, things would be different. Hillary won the race that no candidate was running. Hooray? Hillary and her campaign staff knew the rules. And according to the existing rules, Hillary lost. Twice.
If Hillary had actually ran a successful campaign, she could have won.
When we’re 3 pages into this thread and someone is still getting it wrong, I’d say nothing is blindingly obvious. Especially when the claim is that it’s “the central factor of the election”. The voters did not choose Hillary, and as long as someone keeps saying that, I’ll keep correcting them.
Who are you correcting? You took his quote out of context:
"*The voters chose neither.
- No candidate received a majority of the votes cast. Hillary Clinton received a plurality of those who voted in the elections that day.*"
he specifically stated that. Read before kneejerk.
The polls were not skewed. They showed Clinton had a narrow lead over Trump in the national polls and in fact she ended up with a narrow lead in the votes. Of course, a narrow lead in the national polls and votes doesn’t necessarily convert into electoral victory. The problem was too many people are too innumerate to truly understand that.
And even had she won far more popular votes, the central fact is that she was running against Donald fucking Trump: she should have won both votes by at least 85%. Not to have won big is astoundingly disgraceful.
LBJ would have cleaned his clock.
That’s funny. Especially the emphasis added part.
Didn’t we know this when she was nominated? If she was so horribly scarred by all those virulent nasty lies, as to make her unelectable, then why did we nominate her? Was it just because she insisted it was HER turn?
So, why did you correct someone that wasn’t wrong? To be funny?
Because the voters choose her. And you can quibble all you want between plurality and majority but Hillary got a clear majority in the Democratic primary.
Clinton Sanders
Delegate count 2,842 1,865
Contests won 34 23
Popular vote 16,914,722 13,206,428
Percentage 55.2% 43.1%
I’m in no way disagreeing that Hillary lost the election fairly and squarely - I was just trying to clarify something that was mentioned. Yes it’s incorrect to say that Hillary won a majority of the popular vote - technically she did not. But she did win a plurality, and she got more votes than the sitting president.
That does not make her president, and I’ve said as much that the electoral college is not inherently corrupt or invalid just because the person without the plurality is the sitting president. But let’s not pretend that don’t understand what the poster in question is getting at. He’s factually inaccurate, yes, but we know what point he’s trying to make and let’s just address the merits of that argument, or the lack of merits.
I’m starting to lose track of who said what.:smack:
Given their built-in electoral advantage, the isolated ignorant are not really required to work together with the city slickers, who do have experience living together with people of radically different experiences. Do please note who has majorities in Congress right now, and how well they represent America.
Fake history!
As *you *should know, it was not a state-by-state thing, but a regional one. There really was a strong risk of the Confederacy forming if the North had had both the ability and desire to end slavery in the late 18th century instead of later. It is indeed a fact of history, one which you have no excuse for not knowing, that there were a number of major compromises made in the Constitution to prevent that from happening.
Do you also think the Civil War was fought to protect states’ rights? :rolleyes:
i.e.: “The system clearly was not set up to favor slave states, because the biggest slave state was A-OK with it and the state that was first to abolish slavery as a colony had serious reservations about it.”
This sounds like Logic 101… as taught at Trump University.
Well the DNC probably tried but there was only so much they could do without actually rigging the election.
Was this before or after it was revealed that Debbie Wasserman Schultz and the DNC staff was biased and in the bag for Hillary?
You don’t think that the revelation that she cheated during the primary would have made them refuse to vote for her anyway?
The Democrats supported the Democrat. Duh.
All the Democratic candidates endorsed Hillary. The same cannot be said of Trumps’ Republican adversaries.