3 ms·
The man received about 62,984,828 votes in 2016 ... which is 140% of what Bill Clinton received for his first term. Raw numbers mean nothing. One might as we
by masonic 7y ago
The man received about 62,984,828 votes in 2016
... which is 140% of what Bill Clinton received for his first term.
Raw numbers mean nothing. One might as well look at the percentage of eligible voters who voted for Hillary and make a similarly hostile conclusion.
- belltaco 7y agoVoting population growth is a thing. It went up by 32% or so.
- UncleSlacky 7y agoThere was also the fact that Ross Perot drew off a lot of voters in that election, so Clinton didn't need as many in order to win.
- jMyles 7y ago> One might as well look at the percentage of eligible voters who voted for Hillary and make a similarly hostile conclusion. I agree that a similar conclusion is warranted. I don't agree that it is "hostile." The present situation in the USA is that no leader enjoys support from a large swath of the population.