(11-10-2016 12:06 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  She's winning the popular vote (barely) because of a huge margin in California. Which is of course irrelevant because that's not how we choose presidents.

I'm not overestimating the deplorable line, or any other line, because I don't put much emphasis on any particular line.

The essence of progressive politics is the assumption that a small group of elites can make better decisions for us than we can make for ourselves. What happened yesterday is that a large swath of middle America got pissed off at the arrogance and hubris and condescension of those elites and elected an outsider. Except he's not really an outsider, he just plays one on TV. But although he was an imperfect messenger, at best, he delivered a message that was needed.

And I never said the popular vote was relevant to who won the presidency. It is relevant to the fact that the defeat was not an ass-whooping as you suggested. Hillary won the largest percent of the votes that were cast. You throwing out that fact just because so many more people voted for her in California would be like me throwing out all of the southern states in the electoral college that went for Trump for a similar reason.

That's honestly one of the silliest things I've heard. As if people who live in California matter less than anyone else...

But I agree with your last statement, which is EXACTLY what I said in my reply to your initial assertion that the win was about the deplorable comment. The win was a big FU to the system, and it just happened that the Republican Party got lucky in landing that candidate, even though he kind of sucks.