If 1% of voters had changed from Trump to Clinton, Clinton would have the same number of electoral college votes Trump does. Clinton will win the popular vote for around a 2% margin.

The electoral college benefits smaller states, more of which vote Republican.

Negligible and meaningless pickups in both. Now "Congress" is English for "Reichstag".

Kennedy, Eleanor Roosevelt, Churchill, Woodrow Wilson - all dyslexics. Dyslexia is a type of intellect. If you are a dyslexic and have a high iq you could be einstein. As politicians they get votes. They can read crowds. Pull down fictions. Dyslexics have form based minds rather than more language based ones. We need to protect Gavin Newsome. He is our future!!!

Come down to Dixville Notch, NH as I barnstorm the Granite State in Paul Wellstone's old bus, having already swept Iowa!

Then again, I have heard talk about Al Gore being on the spectrum, and you see what he did.

of them had to win. Point is Republicans do the same thing over and over again (even if with Trump it was involuntary). Perhaps we should learn from that and figure out how to beat them. Just a thought.

While democrats have to be inspired or excited. Apparently they weren't excited enough this time.
And so we lose with far superior candidates.

Bad politicians are elected by good people who don't vote.

Some here will probably deny that but it is the truth.

And she currently has a 1,950,000 vote lead over DT and they're still counting.

The problem is that the voters who prefer her are a DIVERSE group, whose votes count for less than those in the mostly white fly-over states.

We ran a candidate that lacked widespread national appeal and we lost. This was an utterly predictable outcome, only Bernie Sanders might have done worse.

To take Obama's record and do this sort of face plant running against Donald Trump is her personal failure and her's alone.

She was 9 points ahead in the polls till James Comey dropped his two letter bombs, breaking official FBI policy and all historical precedent. There was every reason to believe she would have won except for his last minute interference.

If Comey didn't come out with that and it otherwise leaked out after the election he would have had to live out his days in a cave in Switzerland. My thoughts are with the FBI agents who had to handle that freak's computer.

But I don't really think that changed anything in the grand scheme of things, I don't think there were very many undecided voters. Trump's voters had made peace with who they were voting for a long time before that.

her lead in the polls dropped from about 9 points to 2 points.

Just a coincidence that her lead in the polls plunged after he said he had found 650,000 emails in a pervert's computer that might be "pertinent" to her criminal investigation, and they would have to spend some time going through them all. And leaving open the question as to whether there might be even more terrible emails out there.

So for 9 days, people were early-voting with Hillary under that cloud.And then, two days before the election, they announced they were back to their original decision, and they weren't going to be pressing criminal charges. Emphasis on the word "criminal."

Yeah, you're really confident Comey's despicable actions didn't affect the outcome.

Well, you're wrong and you're wrong about Comey. It was his JOB to follow policy and not interfere in an election. If he had to take flack for that later, tough. He's paid to take the flack -- that's his job. And he dug his grave in the first place by having that stupid press conference last summer -- again, not normal procedure. The FBI doesn't hold press conferences to chew out people they've decided not to file charges against. And if he hadn't done that, he wouldn't have felt he needed to correct the record later on when they discovered more emails to go through.

And why the heck did he take 9 days? They had the database with the duplicate emails all set up and ready to go. It would have taken less than a day, according to experts, to see how many of the 650,000 were duplicates. Which turned out to be almost all of them. He just dragged it out as long as possible and then waited for one last bomb 2 days before the election: a bomb containing the word "criminal." It also contained the word "not" but that didn't matter. The word "criminal" shouted much more loudly.

It sounds like you've got someone you think was head and shoulders above the rest and that you think we all know perfectly well who that would be.

Out with it.

Men proclaiming an irrational hate they justified with nonsense like "everyone hates her". Nope! The GOP and lots of Sanders fans did.
Insane competitor? As if sanders was not way ambitious and cut throat, lol.

Biden wasn't an option-nobody can run for president the same year his son dies of cancer.

You seem to think there was some obvious other choice.

Either could have won.

when they lack Presidential level ambition.

No sane contender wanted a repeat of 2008, irrational competitors win pyrrhic victories. You can argue till you're blue in the face that she was the best possible candidate, but the bottom line is she was running on the best possible legacy a President's natural successor could have and she lost to an incoherent clown who just may nullify Godwin's Law.

With 11 days to go, she had won all three debates and had solid/big polling leads and Dems were set to retake the senate. She was coasting along and every prediction guru and the prediction markets were certain she would win. Even with all of the baggage, faux scandals, irrational hate from the alt-left (Berniebots, Stein, Sarandon, etc), Wikileaks/Russians, etc.

Until Comey/Rudy/FBI committed the worst act of election tampering in US history with 11 days to go, thus sending the undecided voters to Trump and GOP senate/house candidates. It easily cost us about 4%, the difference between a narrow electoral college loss and a convincing win.

As far as Hillary feeling entitled or whatever. Bullshit. All polticians are ambitious, one would have to, to run for the most powerful office in the world. Especially for a woman, who has to have more confidence (what could come across as 'entitled') to overcome the sexist forces that (still) keeps a woman out of the highest office in the land.

And the voters chose her overwhelmingly in the primaries, especially PoC and urban voters, who are more the base of the modern Dem party than the alt-left. Metro areas and diverse states went overwhelmingly for her. Sanders managed to hang around only due to caucuses, which are not democratic or representative of the rank-and-file voter, but more dominated by activists.

and like Mitt Romney the country as a whole just wasn't that invested in their perceived destiny that happened to include being elected President.

She was chosen in the primaries because she didn't face a serious competitor in the primaries. She didn't face a serious competitor because nobody with time on their side would have any incentive to square off against her after her bruising 2008 performance.

Larry David's One Man Show "Bernie" was not a serious competitor.

winning a good amount of actual votes from the people is not enough.

while republicans can lose that much but still get into office.

She WON the election. Between the Senate, the gerrymandered House, and the EC, the system is rigged against a majority of voters. And since they're in power there's nothing we can do about it now. Perhaps an utterly disastrous Trump presidency will get people thinking that maybe the way we do this (allowing the tyranny of the minority) isn't so wise.

Most of us love pontificating but are bored or impatient organizing with others. Hell, we even have difficulty discussing online and that's supposed to be the easiest way to interact.

Happy thanksgiving!

Media, from hate radio blasting from coast to coast to journalism-free TV and radio news to fallen newspapers. Even when we have a great message and a great deliverer, they never get heard.

It's going to take a total collapse to wake people up, I think.

I used to think both sides think the media is in favor of the other side, just due to natural bias in seeing what we don't want to hear over what we do.

But now I'm not so sure of that. Going on and on about the emails and not doing much about the various and many scandals on the other side - not so sure.