Robert Gehl reports that Hillary Clinton received 2.8 million more votes than Donald Trump on Election Day.
If the election was decided by the popular vote, than we would be swearing in a President Hillary Clinton.
But that’s not how it works. And – as he has said many time – if Donald Trump was campaigning for the popular vote, rather than the electoral vote, he would have campaigned much differently.
Perhaps he would have spent more time in California – a state that voted overwhelmingly for Hillary Clinton.
But he didn’t and Hillary’s margin of victory in that state was 4.3 million votes – or 61.5 percent
And therein lies the rub.
The purpose of the Electoral College is to prevent regional candidates from dominating national elections.
California is now a one-party state. There were zero Republicans running for statewide office and no GOP candidates in nine of California’s congressional districts. At the state level, Investor’s Business Daily reports, six districts had no Republicans for the state senate and 16 districts had no Republicans for the state assembly.
Clinton was going to win California’s 55 electoral votes, so Trump didn’t campaign there.
If you take California out of the total, Donald Trump won the popular vote by 1.4 million.
Also, if California voted like every other Democratic state – where Clinton’s margin of victory was 53.5 percent, the two candidates end up in a virtual tie.
Want more evidence that Clinton was a “regional candidate?” Look at these numbers compiled by IBD:
Number of states won:
Number of electoral votes won:
Trump: + 68
Ave. margin of victory in winning states:
Trump: + 2.5 points
Popular vote total:
Clinton: + 2.8 million
Popular vote total outside California:
Trump: + 1.4 million
If anything, the Electoral College should ignore Clinton’s so-called “popular vote victory” as nothing more than increased votes from a “regional candidate.” Because that’s exactly what she is.