son of witless

LAPhil Loc: Los Angeles, CA

Did it ever occur to anyone that if there had been a popular v**e Trump might have won anyway because all the thousands of Republican v**ers in states that are a done deal for the Democrats, e.g., California, New York, Massachusetts, Maryland, Washington, and Oregon who didn't bother to v**e because they knew they v**es wouldn't make any difference in those states might have v**ed if they knew their v**es might make a difference in a popular v**e e******n? The same can not be said for solid red states because their overall v****g populations are much lower.

son of witless

These are the rules. If the rules were different both Hillary and Trump would have run their campaigns differently and maybe with different results. The rules are so small states matter. The rules will not be changed because one day a Democrat will win in the same way.

JFlorio Loc: Seminole Florida

Exactly what I posted in another thread. Trump would have spent millions more and visited countless more blue counties and red counties such as Orange county in California. Hillary would have done the same.

son of witless

I do not see anything changing. After Gore lost in 2000 we heard this stuff. Nothing got changed. Besides, the real winners, Iowa, New Hampshire, and a few other key small states will fight to keep it the way it is. I wish the primaries would all be held in the same day. Then my state Pa. might matter. Usually it is all over by the time the primaries get to us.

markinny

well stated. it is called the united states. each state represented in the e*******l college. we are not represented by 3 or 4 major cities who are primarily democrats. system worked perfectly.

LAPhil Loc: Los Angeles, CA

Another thing is that either way Hillary would be a minority President, which defeats their whole argument. She had approximately 400,000 more v**es than Trump, while Gary Johnson and Jill Stein received approximately 5.4 million v**es between them, therefore she got considerably less than 50% of the total popular v**e. I would like to see a direct popular v**e with a runoff when no candidate receives a majority, although Hillary would almost surely have won in such a case because the overwhelming majority of Stein's 1.25 million v**es would probably have gone to her, whereas Johnson's v**es would have been split more evenly.

LAPhil Loc: Los Angeles, CA

How do you think those of us in California feel? We don't get to v**e until June!

son of witless

I feel your pain. I think this was the first primary that Pennsylvania was in play. Thank God my guy Cruz lost. In hindsight I believe Trump was the only one who could have taken out the hag. Seriously, why should Iowa and New Hampshire have the power to pick the nominees?

LAPhil Loc: Los Angeles, CA

I think I agree with you about Cruz. At the time I would have taken him over Trump in a New York minute, but let's face it, the guy has no charisma and he's just not the kind of candidate with a personality that appeals to the average American. Cruz is definitely more of a true conservative, but like you say, at the end of the day he probably would have lost to the "hag", so I guess it's just as well that he didn't get the nomination. And the primary system really does needs to be overhauled, at least in a way that doesn't allow the same states to v**e first and last every time. Perhaps they could rotate the order every four years such that over the long run they would all have equal influence over the outcome, notwithstanding the number of v**es each state gets. Of course that would take 200 years (50 times 4), but the only other way I would considered to be fair would be to have the states randomly draw a number each time.

Homestead

First off, I don't remember the Democrats calling for a popular v**e when Bernie beat Hillary in the popular v**e.

Secondly, I just read an email where states won't even count the absentee b****ts if they don't think it will make a difference.

If a candidate won by two thousand v**es and they only have one thousand absentee ballets, it wouldn't change the results even if they were all for the other guy.

But most of them might be for the winner which would increase his popular v**e share, but, we'll never know because they won't bother counting them.

Then the Democrats have an unfair advantage in the popular v**e, because once people die, even life long Republicans seem to v**e for them.