Twice failed candidate Hillary Clinton received more votes than any unsuccessful presidential candidate in U.S. history. In the 2016 election, she garnered 2.9 million more votes than then President-elect Donald Trump. Her popular vote tally was 65,844,954 (48.2%) to his 62,979,879 (46.1%.), or a 2.1% differential. Back on November 27, 2016, Trump tweeted, “In addition to winning the Electoral College [304 to 227, needing 270] in a landslide, I won the popular vote if you deduct the millions of people who voted illegally.” On balance, that's likely true.
How many of Hillary's ballots were cast illegitimately? Outrageously, that's still unknown. Yet today, the jaw-dropping actuality can be reasonably inferred. To that end, Just Facts, a New Jersey research organization and conservative/libertarian think tank, suggests that millions of illegals vote in U.S. elections. Specifically, their analysis of 2008 data from an extensive Harvard/You Gov survey indicates that 7.9 million noncitizens were illegally registered to vote—and 594,000 to 5.7 million did so. These figures support a previous Old Dominion University study in which professors and co-authors Jesse Richman and David Earnest stated that as many as 2.8 million interlopers voted. Why is this obvious problem—a fundamental threat diluting the people's voice in elections—“nonexistent” for Democrats?
There's a mutually beneficial relationship between progressives and criminal squatters who vote. Via shared governmental largesse—as examples, direct welfare and/or indirect free public school education—the latter achieve a better standard of living than their point of origin. Meanwhile, statistically, Democrats have a built-in voting bloc despite their odious, out of step policies. Why else constantly encourage, and defend, this shadowy influx of 11 million illegal lawbreakers? Likewise, given the common occurrence of terrorism around the globe, why similarly promote unchecked migration, lax law enforcement and borderlessness?
The only logical reason is personal payoffs for the elite ruling class. Politically, enough warm bodies voting to keep limousine liberals perpetually in office. After all, their ilk doesn't experience the general chaos of street violence in Democrat-run sanctuary cities. Moreover, they don't care about exploding deficit spending; and they don't cover the cost of catnip benefits drawing persons like a magnet from impoverished southern countries.
Why does any of that matter to uber-rich progressives epitomized by “biggest loser” Hillary? Besides votes, don't they also need low-wage workers to do the menial jobs in their gated, safe palatial estates?