ssundar wrote:
Yes, and popular vote does not determine the President-elect per our current constitution is also an equally factual statement.
That is correct and I can not argue with that.
But my contention is, with Hillary getting 2.2+ million more votes and counting,
the nation as a whole voted for Hillary.
Would you agree with my assessment?
These same battleground states went to Obama in 2012. These so-called "Reagan Democrats" voted Obama. Now, they either flipped to Trump or, more likely, abstained. That is more a sign of independent voting than any tag such as "Reagan Democrats".
HillC lost the independents in these states. They either voted against her or just refrained from voting in the Presidential column. This is more Hillary's loss than a Trump win. So, "popular vote win" is a sweet nothing whispered in the ears of HillC supporters.
I more or less did say the same thing, that some
Reagan Democrats types voted for Trump and some Democrats abstained. Independent voters are a separate category, they are the swing voters. They probably split narrowly in Trump's favor ( given the narrowness of victory).
Yes, Obama did win these states in 2012 ( he won much more), in fact post Reagan in last 32-36 years Wisconsin, Michigan, and Pennsylvania had always voted democratic, the reason for being dubbed as blue wall states, and were taken for granted by the Democrats ( strategic campaigning mistake).
No disagreements on Trump. The same applies to HillC as well. As someone who voted for neither because of sheer disgust, I can tell that the lungi dance performed by HillC supporters of all ethnicities and colors is no less obscene than the racism and sexism exhibited by Trump.
Slight nitpick, Hillary approval rating though less than 50%, was at still 10% higher than Trump, and I think that is reflected in her winning the popular vote by a handsome margin.
In the end, the guy with the better formula strategy won the election. We can be unhappy about it and move on. All this talk about recounts and appealing to the electors only serve to highlight how sleazy HillC has been and continues to be.
Yes in retrospect we can say that but that has more to do about hindsight being 20/20. The outcome of the election was an upset of the "Dewey beats Truman" proportion, perhaps the biggest upset of all time.
If recount is legal, I don't see any problem with that. Perhaps it will not change anything but an audit is good for the credibility of the system.