TRUMP WINS ELECTORAL COLLEGE AGAIN. ELECTORS TURN AGAINST CLINTON.

VOTERS IN ONLY 17 STATES CHOSE CLINTON IN ELECTION 2016.
VOTERS IN 33 STATES CHOSE TRUMP.

WINNING ALMOST TWICE AS MANY STATES AS CLINTON DID NOT GET TRUMP TWICE THE ELECTORAL VOTES.

HE BEAT CLINTON BY A MERE 74 ELECTORAL VOTES... TRUMP-306, CLINTON-232.

THAT MEANS HALF AS MANY STATES ALMOST GOT CLINTON ELECTED...ALMOST.

SHE DID WIN THE "POPULAR VOTE", OR SO IT SEEMS.

IT WAS WHAT HILLARY LOST ... COMPARED TO WHAT OBAMA WON (AS SEEN ABOVE IN THE 2012 RESULTS) THAT COST HER THE ELECTORAL WIN.

OBAMA WON THE "RUST BELT" STATES (WISCONSIN, IOWA, OHIO, MICHIGAN, PENNSYLVANIA) AND FLORIDA IN 2012...CLINTON LOST THEM IN 2016.

WHILE CELEBRITIES AND POLITICIANS AND AVERAGE CITIZENS PUSHED THE ELECTORAL COLLEGE, BOMBARDED THE ELECTORS TO "DO THE RIGHT THING" AND ELECT CLINTON, NOT TRUMP, THE ELECTORS VOTED AS THEY WERE EXPECTED TO...MOSTLY.

THERE WAS A BIG SURPRISE FOR CLINTON, THOUGH...

More electors tried to defect from Hillary Clinton Monday than from Trump, by a count of seven to two, as of Monday afternoon.

Of 306 electors pledged to vote for Donald J. Trump, 304 voted for him.

BUT...

Of 232 electors pledged to vote for Hillary Clinton, 227 voted for her, PLUS three Democratic electors, in Colorado, Maine and Minnesota, initially declined to vote for Mrs. Clinton. Two were replaced by an alternate, and one ended up changing his vote back to Clinton.

A TOTAL OF EIGHT (8) ELECTORS ACTUALLY TURNED ON CLINTON, BUT ONE WAS ORDERED TO SWITCH BACK TO CLINTON AND DID SO.

OF THE 1 STATES CLINTON WON, JUST ONE HANDED HER THE WIN BY POPULAR VOTE...THE BIG ONE...CALIFORNIA.

 WHEN ONE REMOVES THE 4 MILLION-PLUS POPULAR VOTES FROM JUST THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA THAT CLINTON LED TRUMP BY, WHERE SOME HAVE CALLED AS MANY AS 3 MILLION VOTES INTO QUESTION, CLINTON WOULD NOT HAVE WON THE POPULAR VOTE.

SHE WAS 4.3 MILLION VOTES IN THE LEAD IN JUST CALIFORNIA! "Hillary Clinton garnered 4.3 million more votes than Donald Trump in California, the nation's most populous state.

In 2012, 13,038,547 people voted in California.

JUST FIVE STATES contributed to more than 35% of Clinton’s popular vote totals."

THE 'BIG STATES' DOMINATE ELECTIONS, IN EVERY CONCEIVABLE WAY.

IT REALLY DOES TURN OUT THAT A VOTE IN WYOMING IS NOT AS "VALUABLE" AS A VOTE IN CALIFORNIA.

LEST WE FORGET...AMERICANS WERE NOT HAPPY WITH EITHER CANDIDATE!

Poll: Clinton, Trump most unfavorable candidates ever - USA Today

[MY NOTE: FROM THIS POINT DOWN TO THE BOTTOM OF THE PAGE...I HAVE NO CLUE WHY IT APPEARS AS IT DOES. I GIVE UP ON REMOVING WHATEVER FORMATTING THAT IS AND LET IT STAND...I HAVE NO INTENTION OF WRITING ANOTHER THING ABOUT THIS ELECTION ANYWAY.]

	BUT  LET'S FACE THE FACTS: ~ CLINTON ONLY WON THE POPULAR VOTE BY A GRAND TOTAL OF ABOUT 2.5 MILLION. HOWEVER, THIS WAS THE FIRST YEAR THAT LATE BALLOTS WERE ALLOWED TO BE COUNTED IN CALIFORNIA, AND WHERE ARE THE STATS ON THOSE MYSTERIOUSLY MISSING PROVISIONAL BALLOTS? "That change (in California's laws), promised as a way to reform state politics, tore down election rules that had been built by political parties to give a leg up to their preferred candidates. What’s left is a system that’s far from settled, for either voters or candidates. "This is the first year in which ballots that arrive up to three days late -- Friday would be the deadline -- can be counted. The uncounted tally would push total voter turnout to about 8.5 million, or around 47% of all registered voters. A portion of the unprocessed total are provisional ballots -- designated for voters whose registration status can't be immediately verified on election day. If a provisional ballot is later found to have been cast mistakenly, it may not be counted. ~ CLINTON WON ONLY 17 STATES OUT OF 50, YET JUST THOSE 17 STATES GAVE HER 232 ELECTORAL VOTES. SHE COULD HAVE WON WITH LESS THAN A DOZEN STATES, BUT SHE DIDN'T. HAD SHE WON JUST THE TEN LARGEST STATES (STATES WITH THE MOST ELECTORAL VOTES), SHE WOULD HAVE HAD 248 ELECTORAL VOTES. HAD SHE THEN WON TENNESSEE (11 VOTES) AND MISSOURI  (ALSO 11 VOTES) SHE'D HAVE HAD THE 270 VOTES FOR THE WIN. IS THAT "FAIR"? ~ COUNTIES AND STATES THAT HAD VOTED FOR OBAMA REJECTED CLINTON. CLINTON LOST 217 COUNTIES AND SIX ENTIRE STATES THAT HAD PREVIOUSLY VOTED FOR OBAMA. WISCONSIN, OHIO, MICHIGAN, IOWA, PENNSYLVANIA AND FLORIDA ALL CHOSE TRUMP.   WHY? FOR MY MANY FOREIGN READERS, YOU JUST HAD TO BE HERE TO APPRECIATE THE INSANITY WE'VE SEEN THIS ELECTION. BE GLAD YOU WEREN'T HERE. WHEN THE LOSING PARTY TOOK TO OUR STREETS IN RIOTS AND PROTESTS, DOING MILLIONS OF DOLLARS IN PROPERTY DAMAGE, ONE COULD NOT HELP BUT HEARKEN BACK TO THEIR CRIES THAT TRUMP WOULD HAVE TO ACCEPT HIS LOSS WHEN HE LOST TO CLINTON. BUT HE DIDN'T LOSE. ONE ALSO HAD TO WONDER WHAT MIGHT HAVE HAPPENED HAD CLINTON'S TEAM AND HER PAL, JILL STEIN'S TEAM, FORCED A RECOUNT IN CALIFORNIA. IN CASE YOUR NEWS SERVICES HAVE NOT INFORMED YOU, IN EVERY PRECINCT WHERE THOSE RECOUNTS WERE DONE, DISCREPANCIES WERE FOUND THAT HIGHLY FAVORED...CLINTON. YES, THERE WERE MORE DEMOCRAT VOTES CAST THAN THERE WERE VOTERS REGISTERED TO CAST THEM, THERE WAS "VOTE FLIPPING", AND IT ALL FAVORED THE DEMOCRATS. IMAGINE THAT! . IN WISCONSIN: Hillary Clinton won Ward 34 by a margin of 100 to 1 in the original count but the recount now has it 2 to 1. Despite only a 2 to 1 win margin county wide, some Milwaukee wards have anomalous win margins for Hillary Clinton in the original vote count. As the the votes are recounted, some of these margins are drastically lowered. Trump added 844 votes to his total for the Nov. 8 election. Wisconsin Elections Commission spokesman Reid Magney tells The Associated Press that "addition errors" on election night are the reason for the difference. Pennsylvania Voters Report a Few Cases of Vote Flipping - NBC News Michigan Records: Too many votes in 37% of Detroit's precincts - Detroit News BUT WHERE THE BIGGEST DISCREPANCY MAY YET BE FOUND (SOMEDAY) IS IN CALIFORNIA. NO MATTER WHO AND NO MATTER HOW MANY DEMANDED A CALIFORNIA RECOUNT, OR AT LEAST A LONG, HARD LOOK AT CALIFORNIA, NO ONE TOOK A LOOK. IN FACT, CALIFORNIANS WERE QUITE THREATENING ABOUT A RECOUNT OR INVESTIGATION OF ANY KIND INTO THOSE VOTER ROLLS VERSUS VOTES CAST THERE. DID CALIFORNIA WANT TO ASSURE THE NATION THAT ALL WAS ABOVE-BOARD AND 100% LEGAL AT THE POLLS? NOPE. QUITE THE OPPOSITE. “Independent voters (in California) may have been disenfranchised during the June 7th primary because of unusual rules that don’t apply to voters who register under a party,” wrote Judy Frankel for Huffington Post. “Independents, falling under the category of No Party Preference (NPP), needed to use special ‘crossover’ ballots in certain California counties – Los Angeles, San Francisco, and San Diego being among them – to vote for president.” A grassroots organization, Watch The Vote, is collecting complaints to show a civil grand jury the various ways voters were disenfranchised during the California primary. HALF A MILLION VOTERS DISENFRANCHISED . A Los Angeles Times investigation found three out of four people registered with the party did so by mistake—totaling almost half a million voters. THE DEAD VOTING? NO, BUT MANY DECEASED PEOPLE ARE TILL ON THE VOTER ROLLS IN MOST STATES. THAT ISN'T ANYTHING NEW.  CBS SEEMED SHOCKED.  Even worse, a CBS News investigation found hundreds of deceased voters in Los Angeles County were still on voter rolls and voting. This discrepancy should have been corrected by the 2002 Help America Vote Act, but California is the only state yet to comply. “The problem is California has been the most derelict state in the country in implementing statewide databases that are required under federal law. They just blew it off for over a decade,” J. Christian Adams of the Public Interest Legal Foundation told CBS News. Leading up to the primaries, state election officials were investigating why and how the voter data of millions of Californians was posted online by a third party, despite public disclosure laws. Voter tampering has been frequently cited in California, with many alleging their party registration was changed without their consent. In Riverside County, district attorney Mike Hestrin confirmed voters’ party affiliations were changed without their knowledge, and the San Francisco Examiner reported 1,400 voters in San Francisco were mailed the wrong party ballots before the primaries. NOT JUST CALIFORNIA. Voter fraud and suppression wasn’t limited to California—well-documented cases littered the primaries, with no solution rendered to those who were barred from exercising their right to vote. In Arizona, voters waited hours in line because 85 percent of polling locations were cut to save money. In New York, over 120,000 voters were inexplicably purged from voter rolls in a closed primary state where independent voters had to switch their affiliation six months before the primaries. Across the board, the DNC failed to ensure a fair and balanced democratic process throughout the primaries. ONE LAST QUESTION HAS BEEN RAISED BY THIS INSANE ELECTION, FOR THOSE OF YOU WHO MAY HAVE MISSED THE NEWSWEEK ARTICLE ABOUT THE MURDER OF THE DEMOCRATIC NATIONAL COMMITTEE (DNC) DATA EXPERT SETH RICH RICH WAS MURDERED FOR NO OBVIOUS REASON (HE WASN'T ROBBED) ON JULY 10, 2016, JUST A FEW DAYS BEFORE THE FIRST BIG DUMP OF DNC INTERNAL EMAILS WERE HANDED OVER TO THE PUBLIC BY WIKILEAKS. THE WASHINGTON POST DIVED ON THE EMAILS AND WROTE: "The leaks come from the accounts of seven key figures in the DNC," including Communications Director Luis Miranda (10770 emails), National Finance Director Jordon Kaplan (3797 emails), Finance Chief of Staff Scott Comer and others. The newly released emails cover the period from January 2015 through May 25, 2016." RICH WAS, FOR MANY, A LIKELY SOURCE OF THAT LEAK. ODDLY, THE POST WAS THE FIRST TO INSINUATE THE MONTH BEFORE THE LEAKS THAT THE RUSSIANS HAD HACKED INTO THE DNC. THE CIA HADN'T EVEN MADE THAT CLAIM THEN. Seth Rich, a normally upbeat and much-loved 27-year-old computer-voting specialist at the DNC, was murdered in July near Bloomingdale, a rapidly gentrifying neighborhood in a once-blighted area of Washington, D.C. Police have declined to say whether he was able to describe his assailants. Julian Assange hurled a thunderbolt into the affair a few weeks later. The WikiLeaks impresario announced he was offering a $20,000 reward for information leading to a conviction in the Rich case. He hinted darkly that the slain man had been a source in his organization's recent publication of 30,000 internal DNC emails. “What are you suggesting?” a startled interviewer from Dutch television asked him. “I am suggesting,” Assange said, “that our sources, ah, take risks, and they, they become concerned to see things occurring like that.” Police Chief Cathy Lanier, normally cautious, may have inadvertently aided the [speculation that rich was the wikileaks source] during a crime-scene press conference on August 5, when she said, “Right now, we have more questions than answers No suspects have been arrested, despite the MPD’s $25,000 reward for information. Meanwhile, sources involved with the DNC’s investigation of a foreign hack of its files last year rule out the notion that Seth Rich had any role in the affair. The fallout from that embarrassment led to the firing of several top Democratic Party officials. DEATH CANNOT BE EXPLAINED...NO OBVIOUS MOTIVE; “Police have found little information to explain his death,” said The New York Daily News. Rich’s father told The Washington Post that Seth’s watch, wallet and credit cards were not taken. The New York Daily News quoted police as saying, “There is no immediate indication that robbery was a motive in the attack…but it has not been ruled out as a possibility.” ALL A MOOT POINT? ALMOST. BUT A MURDERER IS STILL UNDISCOVERED, AND HIS/HER MOTIVE. NOW THAT THE ELECTORS HAVE MET, HAVE CAST THOSE ELECTORAL BALLOTS, HERE'S ANOTHER ODD THING... THE FBI, WHICH STRONGLY DISAGREED WITH THE CIA ASSESSMENT OF RUSSIAN HACKERS AND ELECTION INTERFERENCE, CHANGED ITS SONG OVERNIGHT, LITERALLY OVERNIGHT! REMEMBER MY POST OF FOUR DAYS AGO IN WHICH THE FBI AND CLAPPER, TWO FORMER AMBASSADORS AND SOME WITHIN THE NSA AS WELL AS EX-NSA WHISTLEBLOWER SNOWDEN WERE ADAMANT THAT THE SOURCE OF THE LEAKS MAY HAVE BEEN FROM "INSIDE" THE USA? AT FIRST, EVEN THE CIA DIDN'T STATE THAT "THE RUSSIANS DID IT". IT LOOKED LIKE CHINA...AGAIN, OR MAYBE NORTH KOREA. "Rep. Peter King (R-N.Y.) on Thursday (DEC. 15) disputed reports that the CIA has concluded Russia meddled in the presidential election to help elect Donald Trump. “Whatever conclusion they want to come up with is one thing,” he told reporters at Trump Tower in New York City. "There is no CIA conclusion. The CIA has repeatedly told us that they have no idea what [Russia’s] intent was." “To suddenly have it appear in The Washington Post and The New York Times that the intelligence community has concluded this. Who? Who in the CIA? Is it [CIA Director] John Brennan? Is it some rogue person behind a desk somewhere?” THEN, AS I SAID, OVERNIGHT, THE FBI CAVED IN AND JOINED THE CIA IN RENOUNCING RUSSIA... AND TONIGHT'S NBC NEWS HANDED US THE "REVELATION" THAT, CONTRARY TO WHAT MOST AMERICANS THINK, OBAMA HAD MADE A "RED PHONE" EMERGENCY CALL TO PUTIN TWO DAYS BEFORE THE ELECTIONS WARNING HIM NOT TO INTERFERE. AND THIS, AS WELL AS BRAND NEW 'REPORTS' THAT RUSSIA EVEN TRIED TO HACK OUT POWER GRID TO INTERFERE WITH VOTING? ALL THIS COMES OUT ONLY NOW, THE DAY AFTER OBAMA WHINED ON TV THAT "HILLARY WAS ROBBED"? WHAT'S GOING ON? WHAT COMES NEXT? TRUMP IS NOT PRESIDENT YET. NEVER BEFORE IN AMERICAN HISTORY HAVE SO MANY TRIED TO PREVENT A MAN FROM TAKING OFFICE AS PRESIDENT. AFTER THE ELECTORAL COLLEGE FAILED TO UPSET TRUMP'SWIN TODAY, THOUSANDS ONCE AGAIN TOOK TO THE STREETS ACROSS AMERICA, SOME BEGAN POSTING THOSE "I AM GOING TO COMMIT SUICIDE" VIDEOS, OR "I AM LEAVING AMERICA" VIDEO THREATS. AND WE MAY BE IN FOR WORSE HERE. IS IT JUST TOO MUCH TO SIMPLY BELIEVE THAT CLINTON LOST BECAUSE PEOPLE IN 33 STATES VOTED SOLIDLY AGAINST HER, THAT THE VOTES IN THE OTHER 49 OF OUR 50 STATES COMBINED WOULD NOT HAVE GIVEN HER THE POPULAR VOTE, THAT CALIFORNIA ALONE DID THAT? HAD SHE LOST CALIFORNIA, SHE WOULD HAVE BEEN ONE OF THE BIGGEST LOSERS IN THE PRESIDENTIAL ELECTIONS' HISTORY. GOING INTO THIS ELECTION, ALMOST 60% OF BOTH DEMOCRATS AND REPUBLICANS WHO WERE POLLED STATED THAT THEY HATED THE CHOICE THEIR PARTY MADE. AMERICANS DIDN'T WANT TRUMP OR CLINTON. Poll: Clinton, Trump most unfavorable candidates ever - USA Today DARE WE ASSUME THE VOTERS SIMPLY PICKED THE "LESS OF THE TWO EVILS"...AGAIN? WHAT'S DONE IS DONE AND WE GO ON, BUT, HOPEFULLY WISER, MORE DEMANDING, MORE AWARE THAT "WE'VE BEEN HAD" AND MORE INSISTENT ON NEVER BEING 'HAD' AGAIN... I HOPE. "LESSER OF TWO EVILS"... THAT MEANS WE STILL CHOSE EVIL, YES?