>My take is that democracies always elect the best candidate. In that light I regard such attacks on any remaining candidate as amusing, besides almost certainly mathematically impossible (given the proven perfidy of other current and past American politicians).

They know who voted and who didn't, and they may have age and other statistics on those people... but, then, they only have the correlation between turnout by age (or race or address being in more or less affluent streets) and the result of voting on their particular polling station. As in "in the places where those of 55 and more years of age, A won over B by 58:42"... which is all just too much trusting on the assumed distribution of votes among each group. Sounds like they are overly applying the marxistic doctrine of historical materialism, that the economic position of each group will determine their political position, assuming they are in the same position within the (age, race etc) group. In reality, I remember that it's a much more mixed bag. Where I lived, the areas of affluent and less well off were intermixed - there would be one street with big lots, mcmansions and big SUVs, and then the tributary streets would be dilapidated small houses on barely half the size of lots and clunkers parked in front. They would be assigned the same polling station. And then they go and do statistical mumbo jumbo on it.

Never trust statistics you haven't doctored yourself!

>So, the American people have spoken and the best candidates remain. Can you explain why you think "it happened because too many people failed to exercise their right to be heard. Until it was too late", as opposed to the logical result of people of good faith doing the exact opposite?

If it were true, it wouldn't require faith, it would be a fact :).