They claim: 3084 to 57 in # of counties. Of course, some counties have 357.8 people.

Counties don't matter. Popular vote doesn't matter. I am baffled by peeps who keep going down this road, on either side.

Every day, the lib media gives us an update on the popular vote. What is the purpose? I am not saying they shouldn't have a 2016 election website page somewhere with the current totals but AC and Don Lemon, and I am sure all the peeps over at PMSNBC do the same, make it a story virtually every night on there shows.

It's been almost a month. The game is over. Picking over the "stats" of the game to somehow make an argument he won bigger or smaller than the electoral vote totals seems childish.

-- Modified on 12/2/2016 1:37:54 PM

A quick search found this article which sounds much more believable.

I have no idea why people (other than LTM) need to lie when the truth is actually on their side, but both sides seem to do it all the time.

That said, it's foolish to deny its symbolic importance, especially when some Republicans are talking about a "mandate."  When Clinton wins the popular vote by about 2.5 million it doesn't change a thing in terms of who will occupy the Oval Office.  But it DOES remind people that most voters didn't choose him and that their wishes need to be considered as well.
And, as a practical matter, that's underscored by Dem gains and the House (also only symbolic) and in the Senate, where the Rep's majority is razor thin and they'll have to play ball to get anything done or risk engaging the nuclear option.
Do I think Donnie gives a shit?  Nope.  Ask Chuck Schumer if he cares.

That doesn't seem like journalism Jake, that seems like partisanship.  

And do you really think had Trump won the EC but only won the PV by the same 2.5 million, libs like you would STILL be saying he didn't have a mandate?

-- Modified on 12/2/2016 4:28:12 PM

Calm down, Jack.  It's not even a month since the election, so why is it so upsetting to the righties if people ventilate a bit?  Maybe you don't recall the right-wing sobbing after Obama was elected.  "He's not MY President!  Waaaaaah!" Or McConnell.  "My job is to make him a one-term President."
The fact that the economy was in the worst tail spin since the Depression didn't seem to bother them.  So pardon me if I don't give a shit if they don't like a few liberals whining now.  Besides, I'm not one of them.  What I pointed out is simple reality.
And I'll bet you the Dems cooperate more with Trump than the Reps did with Obama, which wouldn't be hard.

Now if a Ted Cruz for example were to have won, the Dems would have been in lock step to oppose him, and on many issues I would have joined them. I still can't understand why so many Dems are so vehemently opposed to Trump, as deep down on many issues, he is still "one of them"  

Well of course, I guess not ALL Dems felt that way, if they all felt that way we'd have PE Clinton and not PE Trump.

Do you know what I find hugely ironic? That wacko from the Green Party who was barely a blip in the popular vote, did get enough votes in the rust belt swing states to have tilted the election in Clinton's favor if she had simply dropped out. Take Michigan for an example, Trump won by only about 10,000 votes, Stein got around 50,000 votes. No Stein, no Trump victory in Michigan. I don't know the exact numbers in the other states still being contended by the sore losers, but I am positive they are similar. So in a way, we can thank Jill Fucking Stein for our new POTUS. aint life grand? lol

The Dems will take it on an item-by-item basis but won't go down the line opposing everything he does the way the Republicans did with Obama even when he was proposing things they'd previously endorsed.  The Dems approach is most likely to cooperate where it makes political sense (repatriating overseas profits, funding infrastructure upgrades) but filibustering the most right wing of Trump's Supreme Court appointments.  IOW saving their ammo. The extent to which I agree with you is that Trump is more likely to propose legislation a traditional Rep would not have.
Re the effect of Stein's candidacy on Clinton, what about the impact of that other idiot, Johnson?  Still, I don't agree you can blithely assign all their votes to Clinton had they not been in the race.  Lots of those were "Never Clinton" votes from people who otherwise would have stayed home or only voted down ballot.

but I bet you not one in a hundred Jill Stein voters would have voted for Trump, True a lot of them would not have voted Clinton either, but if even a quarter of them had voted Hillary, with virtually none of them voting Trump, it would have been enough.

and I am fine with the Dems filibustering Trumps right wing SCOTUS picks, it might give him political cover to pick someone not quite so right wing without looking like he went back on a campaign promise. Personally I was fine with Garland.