Did Hillary Clinton Win the Popular Vote? – Why Hillary Clinton Won the Popular Vote, but Lost the Election Anyway
Hillary Clinton won the national popular vote, but Donald Trump won the 2016 election by electoral vote due to the way the electoral college works.
The final results according to CNN were (the final count is subject to change, although the idea that it will becomes less-and-less true over time).
- Electoral vote: Clinton 232 vs. Trump 306 (270 to win)
- Popular Vote: Clinton 65,853,516 (48.5%) votes vs. Trump
As you can see, Clinton lost the election even though she won the national popular vote by almost 3 million votes.
This may seem unfair, or fair, depending on your politics, but fairness of winner-take-all is secondary to the fact that “it is the way it is.”
Below we discuss how the system works to help offer some insight into its “fairness.”
How Does the Electoral College Work? – Basics
In the United States of America the President is elected by the electoral college, not the popular vote, and the popular vote in the general election is an advisory vote (the U.S. is a Republic and not a direct democracy).
Although specific dates change every 4 years, nothing is official in terms of Presidential elections until the electors’ votes are cast and counted.
With the above said, for 2016, after the electoral votes were counted it was confirmed by Congress that Donald J. Trump and not Hillary R. Clinton won the electoral vote. Thus Donald J. Trump became the 45th President of the United States after being sworn into office.
The Bottomline on the 2016 Election: Trump won the Electoral College and Hillary won the National Popular Vote. Meanwhile, the Electoral Vote wins the Presidency, and thus Trump became President and Hillary Lost the Election.
Why Does the Electoral Vote Win Elections? Is that Fair?
In a race with a clear win, where the popular vote and electoral vote both went to the winner, we wouldn’t generally need to discuss the electoral college. However, that was not what happened in 2016, and thus it is important to understand exactly how the system works.
The Electoral College + Winner-take-all system is meant to give extra weight to the less populous states, this helps to ensure one part of the country (such as a very populous region) doesn’t decide elections alone.
Meanwhile, to counter that, states with smaller populations are generally given less electoral votes.
The idea is democratic in spirit, although it has some notable issues of state-based majority win drowning out state-based minorities (just like gerrymandered districts do).
However, again, that isn’t the point here. Even if it was, the system isn’t likely to change any time soon.
In America, the less populous states have tended to vote Republican in recent elections (they used to vote Democrat in the 1800’s and early 1900’s, but that changed), thus, as you can imagine, after yet another win by electoral vote where Republicans lost the majority (this happened with Bush vs. Gore too), the chances of them wanting to change the system are zero-to-none (they didn’t just win the Presidency, they won the House and Senate, so vast rule changes are unlikely).
That said, the official end tally is clear, Trump is President due to his electoral college win, and despite Hillary winning the national popular vote, she lost the election.
MAJORITY VS. PLURALITY: One reader took issue of the use of the word “majority” in the article. That is valid as the term can mean different things depending on context. In voting jargon, when speaking of the number of votes a specific candidate gets, “majority” can mean “winning more than 50% of the vote” and plurality can mean “winning more than any other candidate.” In these specific terms, Hillary won a “plurality” but no candidate won a “majority.” If electoral votes were tied and neither candidate won a “majority” then the vote would have gone to Congress (as explained below). With that said, the word majority can be used in voting to describe a simple majority (meaning “more”) as well, so please pay careful attention to context when reading, in most cases majority = more and not “more than 50% of the vote specifically.”
WHAT ABOUT VOTER FRUAD?: Voter fraud is real and every American should care about both voter fraud and voter suppression (like strict voter ID, gerrymandering, and limited voting hours). However, there was no proof of widespread voter fraud in the 2016 election (despite many rhetorical charges, there is no actual evidence). Charging that Clinton or Trump only won because of voter fraud without evidence is not a claim that can or should be taken seriously. Unless an investigation concludes that voter fraud has occurred, we must concede it has not. The same goes for the claims of in-person voter fraud that are used to create strict laws that hurt minorities (like gerrymandering in the Black Belt). We know legal and illegal voter fraud occurs on both sides of the aisle, but we have no evidence of widespread voter fraud on either side. Learn more about voting fraud and the history of voter fraud accusations, the mud slinging is older than George Washington.
DID TRUMP WIN THE POPULAR VOTE?: Donald Trump did not win the popular vote, he lost by nearly 3 million votes. However, these votes come mostly from California and New York… which is why Republicans will likely not agree to follow a national majority any time soon. The College was meant to protect minorities, but in America 2016 we didn’t get a minority candidate, just two candidates of whom neither got 50% of the vote. This is why people suggest things like run-off voting and no confidence voting! See: Snopes Final Vote Count 2016 if need be, of course any source that tallies the election can show you a clear lead for Clinton.
FACT: If California’s votes didn’t count, then Trump would have won the popular vote. While this is an interesting factoid, it is not relevant in the United States. We are a Union of 50 states in the U.S., without the States there is nothing to Unite. Without the states, the electoral college is no longer a justifiable system. It may sound good on paper to point out that progressive California swung the popular vote to Clinton… but it also insinuates that California’s 38.8 million (1/10th of the entire country) is somehow not relevant in a conversation about voting on the direction of the country. The bottom line is Clinton won the popular, Trump won the EC, and the race was generally close like it was in the 2000 election (where Gore won the popular and Bush won the EC).
How Does the Electoral College Work?
To clarify, our Republican, not Democratic, electoral system works like this (dates subject to change, dates below use 2016 as an example):
- The people vote on November 8th as an advisory vote.
- On December 19th electors meet in their state and vote for the President and Vice President on separate ballots. This is a direct vote. At this step it is theoretically possible for “faithless electors” to upset the popular vote by voting against the state majority in states that don’t ban this completely.
- Lastly, on January 6th, Congress meets to count the votes.
- Whoever gets a 270 vote majority out of the 538 electoral votes on January 6th, not November 8th, wins. If there is no 270-vote majority, the House of Representatives decides the next President.
Since the popular vote is an advisory vote, nothing was set in stone until the electors cast their vote until December 19th, 2016 and then the Senate and President signed off on it.
State-based electors could have changed their pledged votes in 29 states per state-based rules, and technically all could have changed their vote per the Constitution (as the Constitution doesn’t say how electors should vote).
These odd truisms of our Republic could have resulted in a win for Clinton or even a third party candidate via the House (although it obviously didn’t, it is useful to know this).
However, to be clear, the chances of the electors going “faithless” and not voting with the winner-takes-all system is unlikely from a historic standpoint in any election.
What is likely is that in any Presidential election the electors will follow tradition and custom and officially elect the winner of the winner-take-all system, putting aside the technicalities of Constitutional provisions or the sentiment of the popular vote.
TIP: There have been two compromises in American history which completely changed politics. Both were called “corrupt bargains“, in both cases the person who lost the electoral vote one. In both cases a nativist populist who had strong support in the south ended up not becoming President. I don’t want to get too off topic, but if you know history, you know how many parallels we are drawing to 1824 and 1877 here.
TIP: Dates are subject to change each election, for example electors vote “On the first Monday after the second Wednesday in December” which in 2016 is December 19th. Likewise, the general election is statutorily set as “the Tuesday next after the first Monday in the month of November” where the earliest possible date is November 2, and the latest possible date is November 8 (as it was for the 2016 election). See a timeline of the 2016 election for 2016’s dates. See Presidential Election Laws and The 2016 Presidential Election for more details.
Could Hillary Clinton Still Win the Electoral College? Faithless Electors Explained.
TIP: There are multiple movements underway to change the electoral college (including a petition on MoveOn.Org to abolish it) or to lobby the electors to change their votes before December 19th (including a petition on Change.Org). Learn how to change the electoral college, and why we should or should not.
TIP: Our founders purposely set up this Republican form of government. They wanted to protect against special interests and majority interest and provide a few extra lines of defense ready in case the public was about to vote in a despot or tyrant. Literally, this is what the Federalist #10 is about, it isn’t just about special interest factions… its about safeguarding the Republic from any sort of political faction be it minority, monied, or majority interest. To be clear, this doesn’t suggest what the right thing to do in 2016 would be, but that is what we have electors for, they make the final call, as the founders intended… The founder’s thinking was not flawed, but the system as it stands today is questionable given recent close-call elections and the very divisive two party system we have.
FACT: The majority of Americans voted for a candidate who didn’t win. The race was very close. The results, if anything show that the country remains divided by left-right politics politically, despite being United on a deeper level.
Past Elections in Which a Presidential Candidate Won the Popular Vote, but Lost the Election
There have been four other times in U.S. history where the candidate who won the popular vote didn’t win the election.
- In 1824, during the election between Democratic-Republican and future Whig John Quincy Adams and Democratic-Republican and future Democratic Party father Andrew Jackson, Jackson won the popular but lost the election. The vote went to the House and Adams won in the first “corrupt bargain” only to be beaten by Jackson four years later.
- In 1876 Republican Rutherford B. Hayes won by one electoral vote, while losing the popular vote to Samuel J. Tilden. With that said, he didn’t really even win the electoral! Instead, things were so crazy post-Civil War that a few southern states reported both Hayes and Tilden winners. A deal was struck to ensure the south didn’t gain power and the result was the compromise of 1877 (the second “corrupt bargain”) that ended Reconstruction (which was actually not a good thing for ending segregation politics, just for ending the occupation of the south by the North).
- In 1888 Republican Benjamin Harrison won by a large majority of electoral votes, while losing the popular vote to Grover Cleveland a “reformed” Bourbon liberal. There was no bargain struck.
- In 2000 George W. Bush Vs. Al Gore, Gore won the popular vote but lost the electoral vote during “the Florida recount”. There was no bargain struck.
Hillary Clinton may have lost, but she will go down in history for winning the popular vote and being the first female Presidential nominee of a major U.S. party. Meanwhile, Trump inherited a somewhat politically polarized nation.
No She did not vote fraud used against Trump more than used against Bernie Sanders who won California by 38 % more votes https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MoGeDGHmwJU Hillary Clinton’s election fraud finally exposed. California stolen from Bernie Sanders! Bernie 69 % Hillary 31 this election the fraud was around double or more
You are talking about the Primary, where we know from leaks and such that Bernie was done some injustice, but didn’t win margins large enough to ensure a win against “the establishment”. We can be upset over this, but it isn’t what the page is about. The page is about Clinton winning the popular Vote in the Trump vs. Clinton race.
Now you know that there is little doubt that HIllary won the vast majority of the ILLEGAL VOTES, especially in CalEEfornia where the majority of votes are supposed “absentee” for crying out loud. Counting the illegal votes forced by our Oligarchy courts ( vs the legislatures of the Republic) by forbidding IDs, Hillary carried a plurality, but NO ONE WON A MAJORITY, w/ over 5 president candidates. So if U want a majority popular vote, it would require a runoff. And if U want an honest election by citizens only, there must be good voter ID w/ freedom from inner city intimidation as by Acorn, Black Panthers, & community organizers.
Respectfully disagree and feel this is a very lopsided view with racist undertones. Can I ask honestly for citations, I am starting to feel fake news sites really are a problem.
The black panthers are pretty much a non-existent group and there is actually accusations of fraud from both sides to consider.
Further, Voter ID is arguably suppression, ACORN was already witch hunted by the right and shut down last cycle, and just generally I looked for proof of what you say and didn’t find any.
See our page on voter fraud: http://factmyth.com/factoids/voter-fraud-is-real/
You ask for citations, but “my Russian hackers tho..”… RIIIIIIIGHT….
Well, Hillary won the Popular and Trump won the electoral, that is official record.
What is also official is that there is a strong confidence in the judgement that Russia interfered with the election (used cyber tools and media campaigns to influence US public opinion).
In other words, according to official documents (see here https://www.dni.gov/files/documents/ICA_2017_01.pdf) It is the judgement of a study by the CIA, FBI, and NSA that Russia interfered in the election via an influence campaign to help trump in an effort to hurt Clinton.
Russia did not however tamper with voting machines, and there is no official record of mass voter fraud (no mass voter fraud for or against either Clinton or Trump).
In other words, the election was a fair election, but public influence campaigns payed a role in the fall of Clinton and rise of Trump (one of many factors).
Ultimately though, many factors impacted the election and it would not be a fair judgement to say “if Russia hadn’t interfered than Hillary would be President, or Trump would have lost to another GOP hopeful.”
To be clear, there is no evidence that Trump or his administration was involved with Russia (outside of a few unique stories like Flynn).
That means the charge is this and only this “Russia interfered in the election via an influence campaign to help trump in an effort to hurt Clinton.”
The problems is trump and fox and friends and the GOP base and their elected officials read that as “an attempt by democrats to say Hillary should have won”.
Meanwhile, Democrats arguably try to spin this as “that means Russia and Trump teamed up and it is the only reason Trump won.”
This is blinding both sides from the dangerous reality, that is, foregin powers are now for the first time able to effectivly meddle in our politics, get caught, and get away with it. They sought to divide us, and we are so divided we saw it as a Democrats vs. Republicans issue, and not an American issue.
That is scary, because that was obviously an intent of the whole campaign.
What the data actually suggests, if I can draw inferences from it (please read the report yourself) is that Russia is trying to divide and mess with the us and… considering 1/3rd plus of Americans don’t care because they got the outcome they wanted, we can be assured they will try it again and will use these tactics on our allies.
Luckily it didn’t work in France, but you never know what comes next. Maybe next time Bernie wins and republicans lose.
At that point, the GOP will be kicking themselves, but you can imagine a different faction will then be in their shoes (not caring and defending their win).
This is the problems with divisive conflict based politics and the media that feeds that narrative.
The complexity and mind games aside, empirical evidence, logic, reason and the use of those technologies by the best of our brightest have done an excellent job of filtering out the noise and sticking to their Duty. And in doing this they have managed to produce clear documents like the one above, which we can all return to for a read when the bias dies down.
As for the content of emails or dossiers. We could comment on this too and its impact, but somehow that feels like a slippery slope given the findings of the report.
Did you not read your own article???? You say the count isn’t complete, but claim to know who won…rather a sad statement about your editorial staff’s inability to not try to influence the “news”. You must be desperate!
When the final count is complete then call the winner. Until then stop reporting speculation as fact. And remember that not all states count all absentee ballots if the result of the race wouldn’t be affected by those ballots. So even if Hillary “wins” after the vote count is complete, there is no way to know if those ballots would affect the winner. If the popular vote was used to determine the winner those ballots might easily shift from one candidate to the other, since many are military who tend to vote conservative.
Go back to the liberal college where you supposedly were taught the principles you are using to call yourselves reporters and demand your money back for providing such a pathetic education on the basics of our Democratic Republic. And quit trying to “influence” and “make” news, just try and get the reporting right!
I can’t stress how truly pathetic this article is. You get an “F” in factual reporting!
Firstly, thanks for the feedback, I updated the page’s introduction to ensure it was clear that it was a “projected” vote both in terms of Clinton and Trump.
So right now we are saying, given where the count is at, it is projected that: Trump is President elect and Hillary won the popular vote.
If we can’t say this about Hillary, we can’t say this about Trump, and we revert to the fact the college picks the President in our Republic, and the Constitution speaks nothing to popular votes or winner-takes-all gleaned from the advisory Nov. 8 election. This would be the most correct stance technically speaking and speaking of facts.
As someone who has studied not only elections, but the Constitution, I would be more in the camp that we don’t celebrate the Nov. 8 advisory vote like the entire U.S. and media is doing. So in a way, we are being more factual than most.
We aren’t saying that Trump doesn’t deserve a win, or Hillary does, we are saying that this is how our system works. We are trying to explain to people who are confused that the popular vote doesn’t elect the President. We are trying to make people understand that this is a lot like Bush vs. Gore where Bush (like Trump) is projected to win due to the electoral vote… but part of that story is explaining that the Nov. 8 vote is an advisory vote.
Considering i’m just reiterating what is in the article, I would say that we are doing a great job reporting the facts and you are just angry because we aren’t declaring Trump the winner. He may end up with the popular, if he does, this page will become a “myth” and the numbers will be updated. No other facts will change, because they are pulled direct from our current system and Constitution. We ARE a Republic with a Democratic spirit, which we write about often explaining everything from past elections to Madison and Hamilton’s Federalist papers.
“So even if Hillary “wins” after the vote count is complete, there is no way of knowing if those ballots would affect the winner.”
Those ballots mean nothing for either candidate. They only prove the reality that America doesn’t want the new dictator, chosen by a microscopic fraction of us, known as the Electoral College, no matter how we voted. Enjoy paying for “the wall” they just bought with your taxes. You didn’t think Mexico was dumb enough to pay for that, did you? They might enjoy a few million construction jobs, though.
First off, Spaz Clinton had to CHEAT to beat Senator Bernie Sanders, who rightly should have been the candidate, then her minions pulled every trick in the book to cajole, extort, blackmail and finally outright cheat against Mr. Trump as well. It didn’t work and she got what she deserved. So none of her popular votes should count since they were actually stolen from Bernie.
Still have time to make a change: http://factmyth.com/factoids/bernie-sanders-can-still-be-elected-president-by-electors/
Perhaps Hillary won the popular vote. However, this does not take into account the fact that Trump strategy was to win the Electoral College, not the popular vote. It is how Presidential elections are won. If the popular vote was the determinant of a winner, then Trumps strategy would have been different and perhaps he would have won the popular vote also. Nevertheless, it is not fair to talk about a popular vote in an election which has the victory of the Electoral College as its goal.
Fair enough. However, it is important from a Civics standpoint no matter what. About 1/2 of America didn’t vote, and many think their vote doesn’t count (trust me, we have a popular page debunking this http://factmyth.com/factoids/your-vote-doesnt-count/).
Our focus is on explaining how things work in practice. It is for this reason that we wanted to explain that for 2016, like for the 2000 election, the candidate who got the national popular isn’t projected to have won.
As for the electoral college, 100% agree, we also write often of the Republic, the founders, and their intentions with the Electoral College. In this respect we must remember that while Trump won the General, he has not yet officially won the votes of the College (as of writing this).
Although our site is focused on facts, it is my opinion that we set the stage for frustration when we don’t explain how the system works Constitutionally. We all need to respect the Republic and our laws as they stand (not how we want them to be). For Trump supporters this means a projected win, but that they must admit they aren’t there yet. For Clinton supporters, it means almost a certain loss, but it is their right to indirectly lobby the electors.
Hillary won the popular vote! Unfortunately, we will all suffer the next four years. Everything Mr Trump has accused Hillary of, he has been guilty of! Look at his businesses and his business practices!
If you discounted all of the dead people that voted there would be no question that trump won.
Strongly disagree. There is no evidence that this occurred and I would bet that you can’t put forth any compelling evidence that would show me 1.5 million or so dead voters voting for Clinton. Furthermore, regional voter fraud accusations are being levied by more than just the Democrats.
Experts urge recounts due to new evidence of electronic voter fraud? Well, I would take anything like this with a grain of salt: http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2016/11/activists-urge-hillary-clinton-to-challenge-election-results.html
… but in this same way, I am after research, taking your comment which lacks even a citation, with that same grain of salt.
See our page on voter fraud, we take it seriously, but it isn’t a partisan issue that can be solved with a quip: http://factmyth.com/factoids/voter-fraud-is-real/
This election demonstrates the genius of our founders in implementing the electoral college. I, for one, do not want the extreme leftist nature of the politics of the east and west coasts controlling who gets elected president of the US.
Amen, that wouldn’t be fair. However, our current system has some majority rule related problems too! Read a short essay on why the current winner-take-all system (which is not purely the EC) is arguably unfair in itself, from a viewpoint of respecting minority interests and the intentions of our founders.
Without the overwhelming margins in a single county (Los Angeles) and single city (New York City), Trump won the popular vote by about 500,000. This shows precisely why the Founders invented the EC, to prevent the interests in Manhattan, KS, from being perpetually overcome by those in Manhattan, NY. It’s only when their candidate loses that we hear cries that the EC is somehow “outdated”. No, it isn’t.
Let us not though confuse winner-take-all and the EC. Two different things. I strongly support the EC, but not winner-take-all for example.
Clinton won the popular vote, fact. But the majority of the 2million plus margin was in the state she had already won (California), which nobody but Fox News mentions. This is why the electoral college is so important, and why it was set up in the first place.
Well, that is true that CA tips the scales. But… that doesn’t have much to do with anything.
1. We are a united states. CA is no more sovereign than WA or MA or LA, not as a state or as a people. They are equal.
2. Swing states like Florida and Pennsylvania probably best represents how the country feels. We see a slight swing towards Trump, and for my money that is correct and what happened.
Thus, yes EC is important. But, any points about a single state aside, I think we can agree that she technically won the popular like Gore (who won by even tighter margins), but like in 2000 the country is really just split in half.
I won’t muse on what that means, but consider that the majority of Americans didn’t vote at all. So really what we are saying is that political Americans are split in half.
Ultimately, the Snopes article explains it well enough: http://www.snopes.com/hillary-clintons-popular-vote-win-came-entirely-from-california. Without CA she doesn’t win the popular… but without a carrot nose, coal eyes, and a corn cob pipe a snowman is just a pile of snow. Not really any good points to make here. I won’t argue what my nose is like without my face, why argue what the country is like without a state? Each state is like a limb of the body, it is insane to consider the U.S. without the S.
Sorry to be pedantic here but 48.2% is NOT a majority – It’s a plurality. More people voted for someone other than Hillary Clinton than voted for Hillary Clinton.
100% correct. Good insight.
Hillary won a majority of the popular vote, but more than half of the country voted for someone other than her.
That is almost right.
So “Estimates show more than 58 percent of eligible voters went to the polls during the 2016 election” http://www.pbs.org/newshour/updates/voter-turnout-2016-elections/
So lets say, rough estimate:
42% of eligible voters voted for no one.
30% voted for Hillary.
28% voted for Trump.
Trump won the electoral, Hillary the Popular, and that is 120 million ish… the other 200 million either chose no-one on purpose or weren’t eligible to vote.
So, lets just say, “it was a tight race” and “the lack of voter participation is a problem”…. there wasn’t even a 50% majority for either candidate of those who actually did cast their vote.
Many people identify as “independent”, hard to treat this like the country has swung left or right or like either party had a significant win of any sort.
Of course, in practice, and what matters: GOP secured a win for the Presidency and majority in the House and Senate.
Hillary Clinton and her fellow demoncrats tried to rigg the election for their benefit but failed and tried making pathetically freaking excuses just like Hollywood. They’re the traitors and need to understand that if they keep pushing they’ll reap what they have sown .
The problem with this line of thinking is that it is conspiracy theory and not provable fact.
The left has historically seen the right-wing strategy (the coordinated and uncoordinated action of different right-wing factions) as a “conspiracy”, likewise the right has seen left-wing action as a “conspiracy”.
Any entity “cheating” in elections does not represent the majority left or right, and cheating is limited to one political party.
If you cannot cite proof, then you should conceded that this is conjecture and not provable fact, when we act on conjecture we start down a slippery slope.
It is my fear that conjecture will be used to create unfair voting laws.
I hope that you see that connection. We need to treat lightly if we respect democracy and the republic.
I’m just glad it’s over and trump.won just hope he’s allowed to help this nation in regards to freedom among to other things
I can find no evidence showing that hillary won by illegal votes but I believe she did because they are wealthy enough and powerful enough to hide anything they do not want known
But aren’t there Republicans of the same ilk, including major Trump backers and Trump’s family? Meaning, aren’t there equally wealthy and powerful figures on both sides?
I agree that first and foremost we have look at this based on the evidence we have, and we have no evidence that illegal votes resulted in a popular vote win by Hillary, but if we want to speculate, I don’t see why we would see for example the Clintons as all powerful but the Kochs and Mercers and Murdocks as impudent or something? They are really of the same class.
We are a country of laws and expect both sides to respect that, but if we want to dive into theory, then I think we have to entertain that conspiracy would have on-paper been equally plausible on both sides.
Anyway, just making a point.
I personally will go with the evidence we have.
Meanwhile, if the state or an independent entity want to conduct an unbiased investigation into voter fraud and voter suppression of all types, I am for it. What I don’t think is helpful is focusing on only one type of voter fraud / suppression and only one candidate in this respect. That is partisan and accomplishes nothing.
Hillary Clinton won a PLURALITY of the popular vote, but she did NOT win a MAJORITY of the popular vote. In other words, 52% of voters voted against her than voted for her.
Any implication that Clinton would have been President had the United States used the popular vote instead of the electoral college is incorrect. In the United States, if no one receives a MAJORITY of the vote, then Congress would have held an election to choose the President. At the time, Congress was controlled by the Republicans and would have undoubtedly chosen Trump.
I appreciate your input, but there are a few things here.
– In simple terms, Hillary got more votes than Trump. Trump got 62,984,828 votes, Hillary 65,853,514. Hillary lose because of the winner-take-all electoral college system. Yes, Hillary did win a plurality (more votes) but not a majority (over 50%), so you could phrase this as 52% voted against her, but then we would also say 54% voted against Trump.
– Given that no candidate got more than 50% (a majority), the House would have voted for President and Senate for Vice, and yes they likely would have chosen Trump over Hillary (only makes sense).
In short, Trump won the system, but didn’t win the popular vote. As the factoid says, “Hillary Clinton won the popular vote.” This shouldn’t be confused with specific jargon pertaining to the plurality and majority. No way to spin this one, Trump won the electoral system, Hillary won the popular vote, neither won a majority of the vote.
Clinton may have been bigger than the womanizer business man who doesn’t give a damn about people and in the big picture, everything else. Christ was known as the evolutionary potential of all of us. I would also say whales, dolphins, ants, roaches, etc. We humans are devolving. Clinton is NOT what we need. Nor does Donnie. Nor does anybody else. Its all of us. WE the PEOPLE. Have we read that. It may be something to speak about, ya think?
The cookie settings on this website are set to "allow cookies" to give you the best browsing experience possible. If you continue to use this website without changing your cookie settings or you click "Accept" below then you are consenting to this.