Election Analysis: Clinton’s Popular Vote Win Came Entirely From California

Election Analysis: Clinton’s Popular Vote Win Came Entirely From California

The final numbers from the presidential election show that Democratic candidate Hillary Clinton’s impressive popular vote victory can be attributed to one state: California.

Clinton’s lead in the popular vote was over 2.8 million votes, giving her a 48% share of the vote compared with Trumps 46%.

While Clinton’s overall margin looks impressive, it is due to Clinton’s margin of victory in California where she received 4.3 million more votes than Trump.

But California is the exception that proves the purpose of the Electoral College, which was incorporated into the US Constitution to prevent large states from dominating national elections.

In recent years, Republicans have been losing serious ground to Democrats in California. Between 2008 and 2016, the number of registered Democrats climbed by 1.1 million, while the number of registered Republicans decreased by approximately 400,000.

Additionally, electoral competition in California is withering away.

There were two Democrats, and no Republicans, running to replace Sen. Barbara Boxer. There were no Republicans on the ballot for House seats in nine of California’s congressional districts.

At the state level, six districts had no Republicans running for the state senate, and 16 districts had no Republicans running for state assembly seats.

Plus, since Republicans knew Clinton was going to win the state — and its entire 55 electoral votes — casting a ballot for Trump was virtually meaningless, since no matter what her margin of victory, Clinton was getting all 55 votes.

If you take California out of the popular vote equation, then Trump wins the rest of the country by 1.4 million votes. And if California voted like every other Democratic state — where Clinton averaged 53.5% wins — Clinton and Trump end up in a virtual popular vote tie. (This was not the case in 2012. Obama beat Romney by 2 million votes that year, not counting California.)

Listed below are other measures of the presidential election.


Number of states won:
Trump: 30
Clinton: 20
Trump: +10

Number of electoral votes won:
Trump: 306
Clinton: 232
Trump: + 68

Ave. margin of victory in winning states:
Trump: 56%
Clinton: 53.5%
Trump: + 2.5 points

Popular vote total:
Trump: 62,958,211
Clinton: 65,818,318
Clinton: + 2.8 million

Popular vote total outside California:
Trump: 58,474,401
Clinton: 57,064,530
Trump: + 1.4 million

15 Responses to "Election Analysis: Clinton’s Popular Vote Win Came Entirely From California"

  1. My apologies, Mr. Jeter. You wrote “idiot” not “stupid.” Please substitute “idiot” and “idiocy” where I had written “stupid” and “stupidity.” My comments about Texas and Texans remains unchanged.

  2. Thank you for your comments, Mr. Jeter. Overcoming stupidity has been a life-long ambition of mine. Unfortunately, I have been at it so long now, that I think it is has become a way of life. But I digress. Using the same points in this article, I would suggest that Trump only received as many votes as he did because of Texas. Had it not been for Texas, Clinton’s margin in the popular vote would have been an another 800,000+. And if we exclude exclude CA, FL, TX, and NY (those are the most populous states), we’ve excluded almost 30% of the votes cast. I know its a long held belief by many that voter suppression is the way Republicans can win anymore, but even the Supreme Court might find eliminating 30% of the half of voters who participated this year might be unreasonable. Except for Texas. Even Mexicans know Texans aren’t the sharpest knife in drawer; most have a deck missing at least one card; and they’re always a half-bubble off plumb.

    As far as some of your other questions are concerned, I do not know that I can help you. Why doesn’t California put in place voter ID laws so the real American votes count? Maybe they have enough confidence in their registration process that believe the person they are registering is in fact entitled to vote. What about illegal aliens electing presidents? So far as I know, it has not and does not happen. However, if you have information to the contrary, I’ll read it. I’ve been hearing reports that Russia elected this president, but I don’t know that that’s true. If it were, Russians were able to influence the election without entering the country. Still, I’m open to learning more about this or any other issues you raise.

  3. The article’s point must be noted and realized as legitimate. Mark’s point on the availability to allow illegal voting is most pertinent. Should several Americans go down to Venezuela and cast our ballot in their elections to try and dictate their government? Or how about Mexico? We could surely have a better trade agreement and possibly wouldn’t even need a wall, right? Oh yeah, probably wouldn’t happen. Why? Because they wouldn’t let us vote because we’re NOT a citizen!! Why do we force things upon our own country that we know other countries would not let us do to them? We want to appear to the rest of the world how smart and great we are. To bad that’s apparently in our own minds.

  4. You can’t equate the popular vote under the electoral college system with what the popular vote would be under a pure democratic system. The strategy would be totally different for each of the candidates and even though I do not know what the results would be, maybe bigger for Clinton or a Trump win, I do know the results would not look the same. I read a comparison to the World Series, if the strategy was to see which team had the most runs over seven games, versus the current of the first team to win four games, the managers would coach the games differently.

  5. I agree with Mark. The land of fruits and nuts has destroyed itself and is heading in the direction of Detroit. Why would we want that state to rule our elections every year for that is what would happen and the other states would never have a say who is the President. This is the. United States. Of America. Each state has its own character but is united in its federal governing. Each state has different laws and policies. In the beginning the only reason they came together was to protect their sovereignty from England. Next, they then protected their state sovereignty throughout the constitution and the 23rd amendment was key to making our country different in that our country is a republic and not a democracy. Democracies crumble and morph into socialist states. Exactly what the democrats are trying to do in this country and especially California You may not like the winner but this is a great history lessen and teachable moment for the 23rd amendment. I don’t think radicals are teachable though sadly.

  6. You’re an idiot Curtis! This is exactly why the electoral college was put in place! So one area of the country could not override the majority of states during a vote. Why doesn’t California put in place voter ID laws so the real American votes count? We can’t have the president of OUR country elected to office by illegal aliens who shouldn’t be here in the first place!

    1. Why is that Jamie? Because Mark makes a truly valid point about the availability of non-citizens being able to vote illegally in this country. Now who’s shoe size should be checked.

  7. The last time I checked, voters in California were entitled to be counted too. Exclude California? It sounds like they’re trying to rationalize the irrational. The bottom line is the same: most voters do not want Trump, only the Electoral College does. In any event, the Electoral College has been debated throughout much of the Constitution’s 229 years; I imagine it will be debated for another 229 years … if we can survive that long.

    1. More narrowly:
      If you take out New York City and Los Angeles County, Trump wins the popular vote by about half a million.

      I’d call that a crushing defeat for HilLIARy and her illegal alien voters.

      Thank God for the Electoral College.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.