AP FACT CHECK: Trump won presidency but lost popular vote

[webfact]

AP FACT CHECK: Trump won presidency but lost popular vote

By LAURIE KELLMAN

 

WASHINGTON (AP) — Donald Trump's tweets can't erase the reality that he lost the popular vote in this month's election, according to The Associated Press' vote-counting operation.

 

The president-elect tweeted Saturday that he'd have won the popular vote "if you deduct the millions of people who voted illegally." He also alleged "serious voter fraud" in California, New Hampshire and Virginia and complained that the media aren't covering it.

 

Not only did he present no evidence to back up those claims — there apparently isn't any. Asked to provide supporting evidence on Monday, Trump's transition team pointed only to past charges of irregularities in voter registration. There has been no evidence of widespread tampering or hacking that would change the results of the presidential contest, and for good reason, experts said.

 

For one, it would be highly impractical. The nation's election system is decentralized, a patchwork of state laws whose differences would be nearly impossible to target on a large scale, said Wendy Weiser, director of the Democracy Program at the nonpartisan Brennan Center for Justice.

 

"You would need to have hundreds and hundreds of thousands of people conspiring with insiders and with one another," Weiser said. "To keep a conspiracy of that magnitude secret is just unthinkable."

 

"The process is not rigged anywhere in America," said R. Doug Lewis, who headed the nonprofit Election Center for more than two decades. Interest groups, bloggers and others across the political spectrum keep anecdotal lists of instances of election fraud, he said, but "when each side is forced to come up with factual examples where that has happened, where they have to name names ... almost always the allegations go away."

 

On Twitter, Trump has returned to two well-worn techniques: denying he's lost anything and playing on public distrust.

 

The AP's vote-counting operations in California, Virginia and New Hampshire used locally hired workers to gather vote totals from local jurisdictions. In some states, the news agency also collected votes from secretaries of state or state election boards.

 

The AP, which called Democrat Hillary Clinton the winner in all three states, said its vote count operation found no significant differences between the county-by-county vote totals and those released statewide on election night in California and Virginia. In New Hampshire, the AP's vote totals were reported directly to the news agency by town clerks and were verified by AP in most towns before the count was completed. The totals also were certified by New Hampshire's secretary of state.

 

Trump's charge that he actually won the popular vote if the "millions of people who voted illegally" had not been counted mimics one posted on Infowars.com, a conservative website that traffics in conspiracy theories.

 

Trump's win in Michigan, certified by state election officials on Monday, gave the Republican an additional 16 electoral votes, bringing his total to 306, to Clinton's 232.

 

There is recount drama resulting from the 2016 election, but it's not being initiated by Trump loyalists.

 

Green Party candidate Jill Stein had raised $6.3 million by Monday for the recount she's seeking in Wisconsin, Michigan and Pennsylvania — places that Clinton, a Democrat, had thought were safely in her column. Instead, Trump won all three and with them the electoral votes needed to win the White House. Clinton's campaign is supporting the Wisconsin recount.

 

Stein, too, hasn't provided evidence of voting irregularities. She says "cyber hacking" affected the vote outcomes in those states. The Wisconsin Elections Commission voted Monday to proceed with a recount and will bill Stein and other interested campaigns for the cost, estimated to be around $1 million.

 

In Michigan, Stein's lawyer notified election officials Monday that she will file a recount petition on Wednesday. Trump would have seven days to file objections to her request.

 

-- © Associated Press 2016-11-29

[Strange]

Yawn

 

What difference 'at this point' does it make?

Edited November 29, 2016 by Strange

[Silurian]

7 minutes ago, Strange said:

Yawn

 

What difference 'at this point' does it make?

 

It is obviously a thorn in Donald's side. He is such a child making noise about nothing. Yeah, what wonderful presidential traits just spewing forth from him. I feel safe knowing he will be in charge (NOT!).

[Strange]

9 minutes ago, Silurian said:

It is obviously a thorn in Donald's side. He is such a child making noise about nothing. Yeah, what wonderful presidential traits just spewing forth from him. I feel safe knowing he will be in charge (NOT!).

 

Noise about nothing eh?

 

Well, there is this gem:

 

31 minutes ago, webfact said:

Stein, too, hasn't provided evidence of voting irregularities. She says "cyber hacking" affected the vote outcomes in those states.

 

So what difference 'at this point' does it make?

Edited November 29, 2016 by Strange

[rijb]

It means that he doesn't have a mandate from the people.  But, the two percenters will get what they paid for.

[Silurian]

Well, Stein isn't going to be the next President...the child wanna be king is. Donald's utter lack of decorum is so telling it is sicking. He can't stand the fact that someone thinks he is less Presidential since he didn't win the popular vote. Good, I hope it haunts him for the next four years knowing that he lost the popular vote by such a large margin that it is glaringly obvious...

Edited November 29, 2016 by Silurian

[Strange]

6 minutes ago, Silurian said:

Well, Stein isn't going to be the next President...the child wanna be king is. Donald's utter lack of decorum is so telling it is sicking. He can't stand the fact that someone thinks he is less Presidential since he didn't win the popular vote. Good, I hope it haunts him for the next four years knowing that he lost the popular vote by such a large margin that it is glaringly obvious...

 

Well it looks like the after-the-fact footnote 'popular vote' is just about all you guys are gonna get out of this election cycle. 

 

Cherish it. You lost everything else. 

[Silurian]

12 minutes ago, Strange said:

 

Well it looks like the after-the-fact footnote 'popular vote' is just about all you guys are gonna get out of this election cycle. 

 

Cherish it. You lost everything else. 

 

OMG...I lost EVERYTHING!!! The horror! The anguish! Nah, I can get immense joy watching the child-president be who he is. I smile with each gaffe...each immature tweet...each false promise falling by the wayside. It is better than Christmas!

 

 

[Strange]

5 minutes ago, Silurian said:

OMG...I lost EVERYTHING!!! The horror! The anguish! Nah, I can get immense joy watching the child-president be who he is. I smile with each gaffe...each immature tweet...each false promise falling by the wayside. It is better than Christmas!

 

Easily amused? Lost the house, senate, supreme court too. But if tweets are enough to keep you satisfied then good on ya. 

 

Its an all encompassing loss for Democrats. Unequivocal. Popular Vote is just a footnote. 

[Usernames]

Usernames FACT CHECK: The AP has been on the Democrat's side and against Trump and his supporters ever since the GOP Primary Began. 

[lannarebirth]

15 minutes ago, Silurian said:

 

OMG...I lost EVERYTHING!!! The horror! The anguish! Nah, I can get immense joy watching the child-president be who he is. I smile with each gaffe...each immature tweet...each false promise falling by the wayside. It is better than Christmas!

 

 

 

You're the kind of super patriot America needs more of.  BTW, how euphoric will you be if the Republicans extend their majorities in the House and Senate at the midterms?

[Silurian]

Never said I was a Democrat or a Republican. Just against immature children for President.

[Diplomatico]

  This "winning the popular vote" thing is the equivalent of saying you won the baseball World Series because you scored more runs than the other team, even though you lost 4 of the 7 games.  

[korkenzieher]

Lets step back for a second and consider California.

 

Clinton won California by about 4M votes and it has 55 Electoral College votes. 1 state.

 

So in the other 98% of the US, Clinton lost the popular vote by 2M and was beaten something like 309 EC votes to 177.

 

In other words - she was crushed nationwide, with California making it look just about respectable, as crushing defeats go. So that means one state gets to hold the entire Union ransom based on its particular voter profile? I don't think so.

[bark]

5 hours ago, Silurian said:

 

It is obviously a thorn in Donald's side. He is such a child making noise about nothing. Yeah, what wonderful presidential traits just spewing forth from him. I feel safe knowing he will be in charge (NOT!).

If the Democrats didn't state that Hilary should be president because more people voted for her; then he wouldn't care.

Which is a thorn in about 60 million sad people.

[tifino]

 

if the Losers (while still on Gov't) were so sure that Popular Vote is what Counts,

 

they'd have changed the entire Voting System to suit...

 

 

They hadn't   

[348GTS]

Yawn. The popular vote is irrelevent. And the original article is yet another lefty attack on Trump by a media who seemingly have difficulty allowing the facts to get in the way of a good smear story. The fact is that California has a very large amount of illegal "immigrants". Another fact is that California issue drivers licences to illegal "immigrants" (the only state that does so I understand). A further fact is that you can vote with a US a drivers licence. For those using simple reasoning and logic, it is therefore not a stretch to make the connection that illegal "immigrants" voted in California. It is also very unlikely that these so called "immigrants" voted Trump for obvious reasons. Furthermore, there is rampant voter fraud going on with the likes of dead people voting (surprisingly for Democrats, some despite voting Republican when they were alive...) and voting machines changing peoples votes to Democrat (but never the other way around....), so once taking all the above into consideration it is not impossible that the popular vote is not what it seems.

[Strange]

5 hours ago, Silurian said:

Never said I was a Democrat or a Republican. Just against immature children for President.

 

What about American? 

 

Children being plural, you mean all the candidates right? 

[IAMHERE]

If I'm reading this story correctly, Trump isn't a very popular POTUS. I don't think he is the first POTUS that is unpopular. Heck, I predict that before he finishes he'll be even more unpopular, so what else is new.

[stevenl]

1 hour ago, 348GTS said:

Yawn. The popular vote is irrelevent. And the original article is yet another lefty attack on Trump by a media who seemingly have difficulty allowing the facts to get in the way of a good smear story. The fact is that California has a very large amount of illegal "immigrants". Another fact is that California issue drivers licences to illegal "immigrants" (the only state that does so I understand). A further fact is that you can vote with a US a drivers licence. For those using simple reasoning and logic, it is therefore not a stretch to make the connection that illegal "immigrants" voted in California. It is also very unlikely that these so called "immigrants" voted Trump for obvious reasons. Furthermore, there is rampant voter fraud going on with the likes of dead people voting (surprisingly for Democrats, some despite voting Republican when they were alive...) and voting machines changing peoples votes to Democrat (but never the other way around....), so once taking all the above into consideration it is not impossible that the popular vote is not what it seems.

Agree with you 'yawn'.

Next time better check facts before posting BTW.

[dunroaming]

7 hours ago, Strange said:

Yawn

 

What difference 'at this point' does it make?

 

Yes it is boring to hear this over again, still you feel you have to respond over and over again.  Funny that! 

[jcsmith]

His twitter is embarrassing. Can anyone imagine any other president in U.S. history doing these kind of childish rants?

 

 

 

He was angry that Jill Stein raised money for a recount. She asked both parties to help with the recount process to ensure it is fair. Hillary agreed to do so. Trump meanwhile went on his typical rant and made up a lie that millions of people voted illegally or else he would have won the popular vote. CNN of course was only one of the networks to point out that there was no evidence of this happening and that it was extremely unlikely. They stopped short of calling him a liar, which he clearly is. And this is how he responds.  

Similar to past incidents when you attack Trump or accuse him of wrongdoing he goes on the type of rant that you would chastise your children for. There is NO question that voter fraud did take place he says, but only in his warped reality is that the case.  Ladies and gentlemen the 45th president of the United States. He attacks the journalist for having no evidence that voter fraud didn't happen, yet he forgets he's the one who said it did without providing any evidence whatsoever.

Edited November 29, 2016 by jcsmith

[dunroaming]

Why is it that everyone who speaks out criticising Trump is a "leftie".  Does that mean that all the Trumpsters are "right wing nutjobs"? 

 

Actually neither is true but some people have to put everything in boxes which prompts the expression "Thinking outside of the box!".  Obviously easier for some than others

[348GTS]

2 minutes ago, jcsmith said:

His twitter is embarrassing. Can anyone imagine any other president in U.S. history doing these kind of childish rants?

 

 

He was angry that Jill Stein raised money for a recount. She asked both parties to help with the recount process to ensure it is fair. Hillary agreed to do so. Trump meanwhile went on his typical rant and made up a lie that millions of people voted illegally or else he would have won the popular vote. CNN of course was only one of the networks to point out that there was no evidence of this happening and that it was extremely unlikely. They stopped short of calling him a liar, which he clearly is. And this is how he responds.  

Similar to past incidents when you attack Trump or accuse him of wrongdoing he goes on the type of rant that you would chastise your children for. There is NO question that voter fraud did take place he says, but only in his warped reality is that the case. 

 

Don't even know where to start with this... You've clearly been consuming wayyy too much of the MSM Koolaid. Jill Stein is a member of a different party altogether, a recount would not change her status in this election. It is not her concern. If she is really after "fairness" then why only choose those 3 states? Why not investigate or recount the states where there have been allegations or voter fraud? California would be a great place to start. Next the states that use the "faulty" Soros voting machines. Trump did not "make up a lie" - or perhaps you or CNN (aka The Clinton News Network) has evidence that no illegals voted in California?? Yes, I thought not.

 

The whole bashing Trump for using Twitter thing is getting old and tired now. There is a reason he uses it. To communicate to his millions of followers when the ridiculously biased and pro Clinton mainstream media cover him unfairly, twist his words, or just make things up about him. Most Trump bashing is just rehashed repeated nonsense which orginated from the Clinton campaign or the MSM. Take the blinders off, you are being brainwashed.

[stevenl]

Snopes: your claim is false, http://www.snopes.com/california-motor-voter-act/

 

Same goes for your other claims about rampant voter fraud with dead people and voting machines changing votes to democrats.

 

So that really leaves nothing in your post.

 

Edited November 29, 2016 by Scott
Removed quote edited out

[jesimps]

7 hours ago, rijb said:

It means that he doesn't have a mandate from the people.  But, the two percenters will get what they paid for.

What's the problem? He won under the constitutional rules. You're just like the Brexit remoaners inventing hard and soft Brexit.

There have been other US presidents who lost the popular vote, I wonder if any were Democrats?

 

[dunroaming]

1 minute ago, jesimps said:

What's the problem? He won under the constitutional rules. You're just like the Brexit remoaners inventing hard and soft Brexit.

There have been other US presidents who lost the popular vote, I wonder if any were Democrats?

 

Quite right and just like Brexit we now have to wait and see.  Just how much of a balls up Trump will make of his time in the big chair remains to be seen.  Not a good start when your main form of communication is Twitter but hey! It works for my 13 year old niece so........

[jcsmith]

12 minutes ago, 348GTS said:

 

Don't even know where to start with this... You've clearly been consuming wayyy too much of the MSM Koolaid. Jill Stein is a member of a different party altogether, a recount would not change her status in this election. It is not her concern. If she is really after "fairness" then why only choose those 3 states? Why not investigate or recount the states where there have been allegations or voter fraud? California would be a great place to start. Next the states that use the "faulty" Soros voting machines. Trump did not "make up a lie" - or perhaps you or CNN (aka The Clinton News Network) has evidence that no illegals voted in California?? Yes, I thought not.

 

The whole bashing Trump for using Twitter thing is getting old and tired now. There is a reason he uses it. To communicate to his millions of followers when the ridiculously biased and pro Clinton mainstream media cover him unfairly, twist his words, or just make things up about him. Most Trump bashing is just rehashed repeated nonsense which orginated from the Clinton campaign or the MSM. Take the blinders off, you are being brainwashed.

 

You are missing the point. It has nothing to do with Jill Stein or the recount process. Recounts are provided by law. If she wants to raise money and have a recount that is her decision. But Trump can't go on childish rants making up lies and then attacking reporters when they point out that there is no evidence to back his claims. Jill Stein, CNN, Hillary Clinton and everyplace else have made a point in saying that there is no evidence to support any wrongdoing or cheating from anyplace. In all likelihood they will recount (as is in their right to do) and the result will be the same. 

 

Trump however has done something completely different. He then makes an unjustified claim that MILLIONS of illegal immigrants voted in California. If he can not provide evidence of this then he needs to be called out for spreading lies or rumors, which he did during his campaign. The honus is not on others to prove that millions of illegals didn't vote, it is on him to prove that they did. 

With regards to people making up things about Trump. That is such a cop out. The mainstream press isn't making up lies about Trump. They can't, he will sue them. He's shown that time and time again. They are telling facts which can be backed up with evidence. I'd offer you the same chance as Trump there. If you think anything that has been said here is not true, please point it out. Otherwise maybe you should look inward on your last two sentences.

Edited November 29, 2016 by jcsmith

[348GTS]

4 minutes ago, stevenl said:

Snopes: your claim is false, http://www.snopes.com/california-motor-voter-act/

 

Same goes for your other claims about rampant voter fraud with dead people and voting machines changing votes to democrats.

 

So that really leaves nothing in your post.

 

 

You're clearly missing the point. This has been reported on and discussed at length on various news shows. Anyone with a valid US drivers licence can vote. Saying they are not allowed to or saying it is illegal is irrelevent. It is also illegal for those people to be in the country without a visa, and illegal for them to commit whatever other crimes they do, yet it happens. When an investigation is done proving 100% that no illegals voted, then I will change my opinion on the matter. But for now logic and reason dictates that the likelihood is that illegals did vote, regardless of whether the Clinton campaign, the corrupt MSM, or their misguided followers choose to believe so or not.

[F4UCorsair]

I don't believe this is the subject ofyet another thread