Okay, fair. Let's look at the evidence. Dow in November 2008:



Dow since then:



Sorry, I reject your thesis.

Many dems in the midwest are fed up with the entire process. because of a multitude of reasons. like political correctness, bad trade deals, a uncharsmatic presidential candidate on a national scale, and no real plan to make things better. Many midwestern dems didn't vote Trump they just didn't vote at all.

Perhaps those 5-10% non-partisan voters are the ones that need to be convinced in order to swing elections??

The whole, they are fake-liberals therefore we shouldn't worry about listening to them or winning them over logic is pretty interesting.

So was the rise in unemployment the reason? No it had more to do with the market collapse, I wrongly posted looming.

She failed to connect with the voters in the states she needed to win. MI, WI, FL, NC, and OH mainly.

Clinton currently ahead in the popular vote by 1,200,000

Why is that important? If popular vote won the election both candidates would of had completely different strategies.

It's important because Clinton and therefore Democratic ideas are more popular than Trump and Republican ideas.

That argument falls apart quickly when you look at the Senate, House, and state government.

That's a fair point. How about this. The popular vote on this election will always and forever remind us that the stupid ass electoral college ended up delivering us this orange monster. If nothing else, it should be repeated ad nauseum infinitum for the sole purpose of reminding people on both sides we do away with that ridiculous montrosity.

You are missing the point of what I am saying. If popular vote was the deciding factor in a presidential election the campaign strategy would be completely different.

Therefore the amount of votes each candidate would get would be different.

I'm not saying that means Trump would of won the popular vote, he may still of lost, but your logic does not hold up.

Source: https://www.thenation.com/article/hi...still-growing/

The system does favor small states. New Hampshire might be the most powerful state in the union given their primary position and swing state status.

The Democratic Party is near death.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...after-tuesday/

Results are still trickling in, but it looks like Republicans will still control an all-time high 69 of 99 state legislative chambers. They'll hold at least 33 governorships, tying a 94-year-old record.

That means that come 2017, they'll have total control of government in at least 25 states, and partial control in 20 states. According to population calculations by the conservative group Americans for Tax Reform, that translates to roughly 80 percent of the population living in a state either all or partially controlled by Republicans.

Trump's thought is the bolded: that'd he'd have spent time campaigning in CA, NY, and the like in an attempt to increase total votes, when under the electoral system he completely disregarded these states.

The right has taken this and run with it as if it's confirmed fact that he'd have won the popular vote via this method by doing this. This is obviously silly; for starters, spending a total of 15 or 20 hours in these states over the course of three or four appearances wouldn't have changed a couple of million votes, which is what he's going to end up losing by. Also, if he could've done this under a different system, then so could've she, in addition to hitting up big cities in guaranteed-R states like GA/TX/MO/IN that she'd otherwise ignore.

Nationwide primaries, ldo. Get the also rans out of this **** from the beginning.

What percent of the population lives in a state either all or partially controlled by Democrats? Sounds like it's a lot more than 20.

You may as well as scream bloody murder that the sun rises in the east and sets in the west.

That part of the Constitution will never be amended.

The interstate popular vote compact could eventually be a thing, though, which sidesteps the Constitution entirely.

I don't know if this has been posted before in this thread, but I thought this was a ver interesting read: https://hbr.org/2016/11/what-so-many...-working-class

Some quotes:

I heard this today basically word for word while talking to a Hispanic businessman who voted for Trump.

Another good point. Hillary was not going to win WI, PA, or OH by offering $15 minimum wage jobs.

Well, Harry Enten thinks Electoral College advantages are largely random and based on coalition building by each party. So the Democratic party could very well lose the popular vote in 2020 and we end up with President Michael Moore for eight years. Just sayin'.

Source: http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/...ion-taught-me/
Harry Enten

Because President Moore was just able to get that populist message out and speak to the working class so effectively, goshdarnit.

They don't "keep" winning national elections; they just won one by the skin of their teeth after having lost 4 of the last 6. And as far as the Senate, House, Governor, and state legislature races, a huge part of the reason is that heavily Democratic groups like young people and minorities never show up during the midterms. Remember, the Senate is now 52-48 because of the '14 bloodbath; Dems actually gained two seats in '16.

There is no way to determine who would of won the popular vote. It is literally impossible. There are factors other than where they campaign including the amount of people who turn out to vote and who they vote for. I have several friends who voted for Gary Johnson but admitted if Hillary had a chance to win their state they would have voted for Trump.

I still think Hillary would win the popular vote just because of NY and CA alone but there is no way to tell.

All of this is irrelevant. The EC is in place and each candidate plays by those rules. Trump just had the better strategy.