THE PRE-ELECTION POST-MORTEMS OF 2016 ( And A tutorial on why the national popular vote is meaningless)

Here, compiled by the Media Research Center, are a series of post-mortem commentaries on how badly Republican candidate Donald Trump was losing the 2016 presidential election to Hillary Clinton.


The problem?  Donald Trump did not lose the 2016 presidential election to Hillary Clinton.  He won it in an electoral landslide, 306 to 232*.

And today?  We are again hearing political “pundits” – including several of the same ones from 2016 – telling us the same thing.

Pete Seeger had the right question for this bunch, in his classic song, Where Have All The Flowers Gone:  “When will they ever learn, when will they ever learn?”


*And please do NOT tell me that Hillary Clinton won the popular vote in 2016.

Hillary Clinton did not “win” the popular vote, she “got” the popular vote.

To “win” something implies there was a contest in which someone prevailed and someone lost.

There was no such contest in 2016.  Neither Hillary Clinton nor Donald Trump was trying to win the national popular vote then.  And neither Joe Biden nor Donald Trump is trying to win it now.

I never make predictions here, but I’d put the odds at just about 100% that, win or lose re-election, President Trump will get less of the popular vote this time, just as he did in 2016.

The reason?  Exactly the same for both elections:  since there is virtually no chance that Trump can win California, New York, Massachusetts or Illinois, he is not bothering to campaign there.

Hillary Clinton, because she ran virtually uncontested in those states, “won” California by about 3.3 million votes, New York by about 1.5 million, Massachusetts by about 900,000 and Illinois by about 850,000:  a total “win” of about 6,500,000.

Donald Trump had no reason to campaign in those states because, even if he dropped each state’s deficit in half (which would have resulted in Trump getting a higher national popular vote total than Clinton) he would still have lost all four by plenty.  So, given that we use an electoral system, he didn’t try to do so.

That is why Hillary Clinton “won” the 2016 popular vote and it is why Joe Biden is going to “win” the 2020 popular vote.  Because since the national vote total for each candidate is an artifact, and means exactly nothing to who becomes president, Trump is not trying to “win” it.  If he were, he would be campaigning very, very differently.  So would  Biden.

Got it?  I hope so.


  • Sorry, but the George Soros bolsheviks are a giant step ahead of you.
    Individual states are adopting the “National Popular Vote bill”.
    Since individual state results are reported by their [state] Secretary of State, and Soros has financed many of their elections (and also Attorneys General), it would be a huge court battle.

    The National Popular Vote bill will take effect when enacted into law by states possessing 270 electoral votes (a majority of the 538 electoral votes). As of July 2020, it has been enacted into law in 16 jurisdictions possessing 196 electoral votes, including 4 small states (DE, HI, RI, VT), 8 medium-sized states (CO, CT, MD, MA, NJ, NM, OR, WA), 3 big states (CA, IL, NY), and the District of Columbia.

    The bill will take effect when enacted by states possessing an additional 74 electoral votes.

  • When people tell you that Hillary Clinton won the popular vote in 2016, tell them Donald Trump won 30 States and Hillary Clinton only won 20 in 2016. If we are going to talk about meaningless metrics for the election, we should consider that also. 🙂

    • The comparison I use is last years Wimbledon Men’s Final, where Novak Djokovic won the title despite losing 36 games to Roger Federer while winning just 32.

      • That’s a very good comparison. Mine is the 1960 World Series. The Yankees out-scored the Pirates 55-27, but the Pirates won the series because they won 4 games and lost 3.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *