Active Now

Honey Dew
Discussion » Statements » Rosie's Corner » Conspiracy? Those who won the presidency by losing the popular vote were all Republicans. Anyone know why?
RosieG

Conspiracy? Those who won the presidency by losing the popular vote were all Republicans. Anyone know why?

1824 John Quincy Adams     Democratic-Republican Party
 Andrew Jackson received the most popular votes and electoral college votes. Election was decided by the House of Representative under the provisions of the 12th Amendment because no candidate secured the required number of electoral college votes. Andrew Jackson and his supporters were inspired by this to create the Democratic Party.

1876  Rutherford B. Hayes     Republican
Samuel Tilden, Democrat, received 4,288,546 popular votes
Hayes received 4,034,311 popular votes

1888  Benjamin Harrison   Republican
 Democratic Incumbent Grover Cleveland won the popular vote by a narrow margin

2000 George W. Bush  Republican
Democrat Al Gore received  50, 999,897 votes
Bush received  50,456,002
  The margin was 540,895

 2016   Donald J. Trump   Republican
Democrat Hillary Clinton (so far and still counting) received 61,963,234 popular votes
Trump received 60,961,135 popular votes
The margin thus far for Hillary is  1,002,099

We need multiple congressional investigations to dig into this. It is very fishy and stinks a lot. Coincidence you say? The luck of the draw you say? Fate you say? I say bullsh**! :)

Posted - November 18, 2016
Tags : None

Responses


  • 35910
    Just a little history lesson. JQ Adams was not a Republican. Abraham Lincoln was the first Republican President. 

    Also there is one more possible election that is disputed.  I had not heard this until just now.

    1960 (disputed): John F. Kennedy

    Democratic candidate John F. Kennedydefeated Republican candidate Richard Nixonin the 1960 United States presidential election. Kennedy is generally considered to have won the popular vote as well, by a narrow margin, but based on the unusual nature of the election in Alabama, political journalists John Fund and Sean Trende have argued that Nixon actually won the popular vote.[6][7][8]


    It is not bull.... It is a result of the fact that rural people tend to be more conservative and those in urban areas tend to be more liberal.

      November 18, 2016 4:38 AM MST
    0

  • 17258
    Huh? And how exactly does the fact that rural people tend to be more conservative and those in urban areas tend to be more liberal influence the counting of total votes? All districts will count in?
      November 18, 2016 4:47 AM MST
    1

  • 35910
    It influences the results of the electoral college. That is partially why we have an the EC. So that the more populous states do not mob rule over the less populous states. The Constitution would never have been approved without the EC. The representatives at the convention of the smaller states knew they would be overruled and ignored by the larger states. 
      November 18, 2016 5:08 AM MST
    1

  • 17258
    m2c, the question is about the popular vote...
      November 18, 2016 5:12 AM MST
    1

  • 113301
    :):):)
      November 18, 2016 5:14 AM MST
    1

  • 35910
    They question asked Why? That is what I answered. The WHY involves the EC.
      November 18, 2016 5:40 AM MST
    0

  • 17258
    Whatever 2cents. Suit yourself.

    However, it doesn't really make any sense with the fact that rural people tend to be more conservative and those in urban areas tend to be more liberal when looking at the popular vote. You will agree on this, no?
      November 18, 2016 5:51 AM MST
    0

  • 35910
    Also explains the why. Many of the less populous states are mostly rural. 
      November 18, 2016 6:06 AM MST
    0

  • 17258
    However, it doesn't really make any sense with the fact that rural people tend to be more conservative and those in urban areas tend to be more liberal when looking at the popular vote. You will agree on this, no?
      November 18, 2016 6:10 AM MST
    0

  • 35910
    Yes. It would still apply because if we went by popular vote then the candidates would only concentrate on more populous areas. Again causing smaller areas to be ignored. Suppressing the votes in those areas. 
      November 18, 2016 6:48 AM MST
    0

  • 17258
    Popular vote: the vote for a U.S. presidential candidate made by the qualified voters, as opposed to that made by the electoral college.

    Electoral vote: the vote cast in the electoral college of the U.S. by the representatives of each state in a presidential election.

    I see, we catched the phase of denial. I am not questioning the electoral votes. I am telling you that the sentence you used, the fact that rural people tend to be more conservative and those in urban areas tend to be more liberal makes no sense when discussing the popular vote. It does when when you look at the electoral vote. However, that wasn't really the aim of the question posted. I believe you are smart enough to see this when your stubbornness has taken off.

    There is no need for you to keep on telling me the same again for the X'th time. I wish you a lovely Friday. Ciao. This post was edited by Benedict Arnold at November 18, 2016 7:47 AM MST
      November 18, 2016 6:57 AM MST
    0

  • 46117
    My 2 Cents. 

    That was the year of Watergate?   I think you need to consider "fishy".   You remember Watergate don't you?  That was when the Republicans broke into the Democratic headquarters to steal sensitive information so they could overcome the opposition?

    If anything were suspect, that is where to look.  Not at the Democrats.  However, I know the Kennedys pulled some strings to win that election.  I know Joe Kennedy bribed a lot of nefarious characters to seek aid and ensure the election went to Kennedy.


    So?  Both parties are crooked.  Always was and always will be. This post was edited by WM BARR . =ABSOLUTE TRASH at November 18, 2016 6:14 AM MST
      November 18, 2016 5:58 AM MST
    1

  • 35910
    Watergate was 1972....

    Yes both parties do crooked stuff. 
      November 18, 2016 6:07 AM MST
    0

  • 113301
    :):):)
      November 18, 2016 5:18 AM MST
    1

  • 113301
    I purposely left out JFK BECAUSE it was disputed. The party was the Democratic-Republican party at the beginning. If you read all of the info I provided I said that was what inspired Andrew Jackson and his supporters to create the Democratic Party. You need to be more attentive to what I write m2c. You are so anxious to refute what I say you don't read what I write. Next time please do better. Although I expect this is as good as I am ever going to get from you isn't it?
      November 18, 2016 5:17 AM MST
    1

  • 35910
    Yes I did read what you wrote.
    And you made the assumption or implication (by referring to JQA as a Republican) that the party simply split and became the current Republican and Democrat parties.  But the Democratic-Republican party did not become the Republican party. The D-R party was dissolved and other parties came to the forefront. If memory serves it was the Democrat and the Whigs next. The Republican party was not formed until 1854. Long after JQA was President.  This post was edited by my2cents at November 18, 2016 5:46 AM MST
      November 18, 2016 5:38 AM MST
    0

  • 46117
    There are 44 Presidents?

    Five Republicans lost the popular vote. 

    So? 

    That means 39 Presidents did not.  That is a very wide margin to place your theory of foul as valid.

    That's not a lot.  Also they did not have the exact same situations occur 100 years ago.    You are seriously going back well over a century and using that as fodder for this nonsense.

    What is your point?  What could they possibly have done in 1824 to 1888 that has anything REMOTELY to do with today over 100 years later?  Without ANY popular vote winning since then till now? 

    Come on.  Get REAL?

    I think something fishy happened today.  I do. I think Trump did something.  I'm not sure what or how.  But it sure as hell doesn't date back to what his "party" did 130 years ago.  And not at all until George Bush?

    No, that doesn't wash. 
      November 18, 2016 6:08 AM MST
    0