Can trump still win the popular vote?

Can trump still win the popular vote?

I want him to so fucking badly, just to shut looney lefties up. Then they have no recourse. They can't claim the moral high ground, it will literally be like Brexit, "I'm upset my side lost!".

Other urls found in this thread:

nbcnews.com/id/18053715/ns/politics/t/maryland-sidesteps-electoral-college/#.WCZZ83Q76hC
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Popular_Vote_Interstate_Compact
knowledgecenter.csg.org/kc/content/us-military-and-overseas-voter-turnout-2012
usvotefoundation.org/4percent-overseas-voter-turnout-not-good
heritage.org/research/reports/2009/07/americas-military-voters-re-enfranchising-the-disenfranchised
uselectionatlas.org/RESULTS/data.php?year=2016&datatype=national&def=1&f=0&off=0&elect=0
uselectionatlas.org/note.html
twitter.com/SFWRedditImages

Not with that gap. 1-200k could be done when the military votes are counted, but there isn't enough to close 400-500k.

Maybe someone will correct me, but I think its unlikely sadly.

If the left makes enough of a stink about it, then perhaps Trump will ask all the states to open up their military and provisional ballots to get an actual accurate count.

IMO if the national popular vote makes a difference in even one state, then they should count all the votes for every state regardless.

.5%. It's nothing. They are grasping at straws. Libs have been soundly beaten into the ground. Midterm elections are going to be a bloodbath for them also. Enjoy their impotent rage.

How do you determine that?

Is there anywhere I can find how many votes approx. Have yet to be counted?

Isn't military alone almost over 1.4 milion votes?

Would Americans tolerate a load of faithless electors? Because that's what some crazies seem to be angling for.

Please tell me the electors aren't never trumpers...

I'm curious about if they'll be enough to flip it. Crushing the lefties' last line of defense would be the icing on the cake

It's civil war if that happens. Even better for us, they haven't had time to revoke the 2nd amendment yet

a number of electors were actually never hillaries, so we'll have to see what happens

>the system is fair as long as it works how I want it to!
K

Some dem elector for WA said he wouldn't vote for Hillary if she won the state a few months back. I doubt everyone will just rally behind Hillary for some crybaby liberals

Well, you have to remember that electors are appointed by the parties of the state. So, you would need a state that

A. Can change its votes
B. Is not Republican

Because the Republican party isn't stupid enough to lose both the supreme court, and the executive branch.

So, your closest match to this of all the states that can change electors is Arizona. Arizona lacks the votes to change the election.

Most of the states that can change their votes are die hard redland.

I've heard a few want to actually flip, except it's for Trump and in Washington.

Most of those crybabies are millennials.

Even leftist politicians recognize how lazy and undependable millennials are.

Does anyone have the picture at hand from Wikipedia where Hillary won the popular vote against Obama?

The people talking about this as if it has a chance of happening are hilarious.

Look, we've had less than 10 faithless electors since 1900. In that time, the most there has ever been in one year is 2.

At a minimum, there would need to be *35* to even get Trump under 270. If he falls under 270, the House of Representatives votes. The House is Republican controlled.

But wait, there's more.

Congress (again, republican controlled) has to APPROVE the electoral vote. They will never accept a switch to Hillary, because it would obviously be due to bribery.

There is zero chance this happens.

Fuck, more electors have come out about not voting for HILLARY than there have been for Trump.

Trump doesn't have to win the popular vote because California doesn't matter.

Stop beating a dead horse.

>Isn't military alone almost over 1.4 milion votes?

how many, among the military, vote?

Trump may lose the popular vote, but it's not like Clinton won a majority of the votes. If they were serious about electoral reform they would demand instant-runoff, so people could chose third parties in their first choice. They don't want this. They just want a system that results in a win for them.

>I want him to so fucking badly, just to shut looney lefties up
Why?
I love the butthurt

All those who want a raise and are smart enough to vote for it.

Maryland wants to start a civil war by voting for the person who wins the popular vote

nbcnews.com/id/18053715/ns/politics/t/maryland-sidesteps-electoral-college/#.WCZZ83Q76hC

Which is how many approxomatily?

A McMullin win was a possibility if it was 270-268 break in Trump's favor. In that case all it would take is one elector to vote for McMullin and the decision would be left to the House.

Fortunately, Trump got a yuge win so this isn't really possible. I don't see 36 electors breaking for McMullin and there is no fucking way they would break for Clinton.

...

It's not just maryland

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Popular_Vote_Interstate_Compact

Several states do this.

None that will affect this election.

popular vote doesn't matter much in america anyway but if any lefties give you shit about it just tell them Trump would've won the popular vote too if the dems weren't stuffing the ballot box and getting illegals to vote

No. There was an election. Trump won the election. He is now president. Anything besides that would undermine democracy. Undermining democracy would be a complete disaster and eventually de-legitimize the government. It would be far more damaging that anything Trump could possibly do and everyone, including Hillary Clinton, knows it.

But if he loses the popular vote some would argue it goes against democracy to elect him.

ITS JUST THE CALFORNIA VOTES
Some believe up to 1 million do not even have the legal right to vote, or for that matter, to live in this country.
Either way, a less than 1% popular vote victory is meaningless if your opposition didn't bother to show up to vote in states they new would lose anyways.

Which doesn't fucking matter because they are retards that don't know what a fucking Republic is.

If the electoral college wouldn't exist, Big Cities alone would decide who gets in office, which means, always Democrats.

a good argument against sjw (to maximize butthurt) is to say that trump still had 60$mill at his disposal for the campaign: he could have ran more adds on local tv throughout the last week: he just didnt because he prefers to win UNDERBUDGET

I'm curious about this, in my country 99% of soldiers vote.
I would be quite disappointed if the so-called American patriots turn out to be lazy bastards who don't care about who ultimately decides their lives.

>not understanding why non-proportional voting exists in the first place

>Maryland will vote for who won their state
>civil war

Every single signatory to the NPVIC is a heavy blue state, it's not gonna happen. Furthermore, it won't go into effect until 270 electoral votes are in the compact.

Soldiers and veterans vote disproportionately here google it. They have the most incentive to vote because their lives are at risk.

The electoral college needs to go but they cant change the results of an election without destroying legitimacy. I'm entirely serious when I say changing the results of the presidential election would eventually lead to the downfall of the government.

>500 thousand votes

That's less than the amout of lefties that will flee to Canada.

i looked it up myself:

knowledgecenter.csg.org/kc/content/us-military-and-overseas-voter-turnout-2012
>(pic related)

usvotefoundation.org/4percent-overseas-voter-turnout-not-good
>NOT GOOD: 4% Turnout for Overseas Voters

so, however it may help, it will not singlehandedly offset the difference (apparently)

Im aware of this and noted such

screencapping this for future discussions.

lazy bastard here

can confirm, my faith was fully out of my hands

>Can trump still win the popular vote?

if the millions of illegal aliens that voted for Clinton had their votes wiped off the books, as they should be, then Trump did win the popular vote

And the SJW suicides will close the gap.

Most soldiers in the US army are fairly disillusioned. Its low pay for ostensibly the most dangerous job in the world in recent times and the pledge to support vets is just a tagline for every government. In Britain we manage to curb it somewhat with very inclusive military societies and commission outfits that can offer you some great bonuses. Exotic holidays, free cargo delivery, dress and civic duties can be really worthwhile. There's none of that in America sadly.

(this is just personal curiosity)

More (from a 2009 article):

>According to a recent study by the Overseas Vote Foundation (OVF), many of these overseas military ballots may have been lost or significantly delayed by the postal service. The OVF found that nearly 22 percent of respondents to a survey, which included military and overseas voters, never received their requested absentee ballot for the 2008 presidential election.

>In addition, 10 percent received their absentee ballots less than seven days before the election and 1 percent received their ballots after November 4, 2008. In other words, the 2008 OVF Report found that nearly onethird of its respondents either did not receive their absentee ballot or received it with insufficient time to return it to election officials.

>Unfortunately, the 2008 presidential election was not an anomaly.

heritage.org/research/reports/2009/07/americas-military-voters-re-enfranchising-the-disenfranchised

The illegals here are bragging about voting. My mom is a resident alien and the illegals that she knows asked her if she voted my mom said no. Then the woman laughed and said why everyone in our community voted. Fucking jerry brown.

Pleas elaborate.
How can you be not interested on who you supreme commander is?

There would legit be a civil war.

Local government would refuse to cooperate at all with any federal entity. Military would ignore feds at best. There would be riots and shootings. Worst outcome possible

Someone working with Trump said that websites such as Politico.com are purposedly not updating the total vote count.
If you go on Politico.com and make a spreadsheet where you add the votes for each 50 states, the total for Trump should be higher than the Clinton one.

where to go for an updated votecount?

Wouldn't that make the soldiers more prone to voting (or in a very extreme scenario lead to a military-led revolution).

CNN is updated, and Trump is losing by over 500k. He lost the popular vote.

Doesn't matter. Our system is set up so that popular vote means jack shit. We vote, our electors will cast their vote on our behalf. They can do whatever they want with that electoral college but usually they will follow the will of the people. 99% of the US popular vote could vote for candidate A and the electors who are far more educated could pick candidate B. That's just the way it is.

>Win popular vote twice
>Picked over a black man then an orange man
I love it

I read that a huge chunk of military vote was deliver one day to late.

Trump won the popular vote.
Hillary is as popular as a fart in a space-suit.

What I meant is that this Trump person said that, for example on Politico.com, the national total vote count displayed on the page for Trump is lower than the sum of the votes for each of the 50 states DISPLAYED ON THE SAME PAGE.
Someone just had to make the sum of the 50 states and compare it with the national total displayed. Numbers should be different

Why is this taking so long? Does counting popular vote always take 3+ days?

Nope. Can't count those ballots dems burned in major US cities.

LOL

i read here that counting never ends

in places like alaska, hawai et al. people dont bother to finish counting up to some point

overseas ballots arent opened if they cannot change the outcome of the election (district-wise, county-wise...)

if 1 million soldiers vote, how can any state already be called? are soldiers votes just for the popular vote? in that case their vote is meaningless

I was wondering the same thing. I am guessing that it is George Soro's idea to slow the counting down so that the dems will see Hillary ahead in popular and go more ape-shit.

1. Clinton conceded.

2. Trump has bashed in the doors and the elites are willing to work with him.

The election is over. Leftist salt ain't gonna change shit.

this is what happens when you have bad health and cant travel to many places and do lots of rallies: you win bigly whenever you go, you lose whenever you dont go

Donald Trump grabbed Hillary by the pussy and got rug burn on his hand.

where are all these clinton votes coming from? like what states are giving her this ~400-500k lead in the popular vote?

election night trump had a decent lead in the popular vote but it seemed like after cali joined the race clinton skyrocketed. i mean it can't be just from cali alone. that be insane.

>like what states are giving her this ~400-500k lead in the popular vote?

El Norte

Military votes or normally sent in well ahead of time and counted just like and with everyone else's on election night.

If there is some giant war reason they do not get in on time they may be counted after but that is not an issue this time.

>this gay faggot never links to site and always post this gay thread

they have no moral high ground. the popular vote totals mean nothing

some places have to do an automatic recount due to margins

Cali gave her 2-3 million votes for her over him

Keep in mind that cuckocrat states allowed illegals to vote, as well as VA permitting 60,000 felons to vote. You and I know damn well there was rampant fraud taking place on top of all that.

Trump easily won the popular vote among LEGAL voters.

Who cares, it's funny to watch the libs squirm.

Cali has a population of over 38 million. We have the highest population of all the stats, the second highest population stat is still over 10 million people behind us.
Unfortunately a large portion of our population are 1:libtards in SF, SD, and LA, or 2:beaners.

As much as I'd like this to be true as I already have a bet on Trump winning the popular vote, it's not. Doesn't matter for his presidency... but muh money...

uselectionatlas.org/RESULTS/data.php?year=2016&datatype=national&def=1&f=0&off=0&elect=0

That's an interesting scenario. Trump and Clinton supporters both marching on D.C. at the same time. The bloodbath would have been glorious.

What does this mean

2.6 mill went to her over him

># of precincts reported / # of precincts total

(i guess)

There's 1083 precincts that have yet to delcare the result of their count.

>t. Libtard protesting for exactly that reason

I'm with her.

You can't consider popular vote a real metric when it's not a popular vote to begin with. The strategies would be wildly different between the two kinds of votes. Also many do or don't vote based on the electoral college.

If trump deports illegals, does it mean future republicans can get an easier chance to win?

Would have been inconsequential. The House delegations would have immediately voted in Trump if no one broke 270.

States actually send in "certified" results in about Late November or December and those are the real final totals. But the certified results difference from "quick" results is always microscopic little corrections.

As someone stated earlier odds are overseas ballots get lost in transit, also if they do come in it is usually long after the electoral college has voted

Sauce - United States Marine Corps Veteran

>does it mean future republicans can get an easier chance to win?

if they dont fuck things up now, yes

He won the majority vote already. It's just that our stupid laws allow african apes and aztec jungle-monkeys to enter our country and vote.

He won the majority of actual humans.

Yes. If they don't fuck up too hard, they will be unbeatable for a generation.

Yes. Trump needs to enforce Voter ID too.

>dude trump is the end of the world lmao
>voted johnson/stein or didn't vote

>using blue for Donald
>red for Shill

he won it if you don't count leftards who voted twice

Yeah I don't get it either, but the guy is an industry leader in research. He claims it's "too hard" to change now.

uselectionatlas.org/note.html

>Implying the NEETs of this website would do anything