Hilary Clinton's lead in the popular vote surpasses 2 million
Hillary Clinton’s lead over Donald Trump in the popular vote surpassed 2 million Wednesday morning, according to Dave Wasserman of the nonpartisan Cook Political Report. Clinton has garnered 64,223,958 votes, compared to Trump’s 62,206,395 votes.
By Nov. 15, the Democratic nominee’s advantage had crossed the 1-million mark and ballooned to 1.5 million by Sunday.
Despite Clinton’s lead in the popular vote, it was Trump who prevailed on Election Day by clinching 270 Electoral College votes.
Trump told New York Times reporters Tuesday he would “rather do the popular vote” and was “never a fan of the Electoral College until now.”
“The popular vote would have been a lot easier, but it’s a whole different campaign. I would have been in California, I would have been in Texas, Florida and New York, and we wouldn’t have gone anywhere else,” Trump said. “Which is, I mean I’d rather do the popular vote.”
“But I think the popular vote would have been easier in a true sense because you’d go to a few places,” he added. “I think that’s the genius of the Electoral College. I was never a fan of the Electoral College until now.”
Trump's comments echo the sentiments he expressed a week after his historic election, when he tweeted: “The Electoral College is actually genius in that it brings all states, including the smaller ones, into play. Campaigning is much different!”
That, however, was an about-face from what he tweeted after President Barack Obama’s reelection against Mitt Romney in 2012.
“The electoral college is a disaster for a democracy,” Trump declared then.
For good measure, Trump boasted last week, “If the election were based on total popular vote I would have campaigned in N.Y. Florida and California and won even bigger and more easily.”
California Sen. Barbara Boxer, a Democratic lawmaker who supported Clinton, introduced legislation last week to abolish the Electoral College. The long-shot bid is not expected to clear the GOP-controlled Congress, though.
And at least a half-dozen electors, those who will formally cast votes for Trump and Clinton on Dec. 19, are pushing to block Trump from winning a majority of votes.
While the effort is unlikely to succeed — even if it did, the House of Representatives could simply choose to elect Trump — so-called faithless electors who buck the will of the voters could spur more widespread calls for reform.
Al Gore's lead over George W. Bush in the famously close 2000 election was about 500,000 — which at the time was the largest advantage in the popular vote for a candidate who lost the Electoral College vote in the presidential election.
That, however, was an about-face from what he tweeted after President Barack Obama’s reelection against Mitt Romney in 2012.
“The electoral college is a disaster for a democracy,” Trump declared then.
For good measure, Trump boasted last week, “If the election were based on total popular vote I would have campaigned in N.Y. Florida and California and won even bigger and more easily.”
California Sen. Barbara Boxer, a Democratic lawmaker who supported Clinton, introduced legislation last week to abolish the Electoral College. The long-shot bid is not expected to clear the GOP-controlled Congress, though.
And at least a half-dozen electors, those who will formally cast votes for Trump and Clinton on Dec. 19, are pushing to block Trump from winning a majority of votes.
While the effort is unlikely to succeed — even if it did, the House of Representatives could simply choose to elect Trump — so-called faithless electors who buck the will of the voters could spur more widespread calls for reform.
Al Gore's lead over George W. Bush in the famously close 2000 election was about 500,000 — which at the time was the largest advantage in the popular vote for a candidate who lost the Electoral College vote in the presidential election.
No comments:
Post a Comment