>
>The cartogram has nothing to do with who won, but it has a lot to do with whether it was a landslide. If you look at the standard red-blue map, it looks like the country is a wide swatch of red, with little blue islands on the coast. But when you correct for population, you see the reality that the country is pretty evenly divided, which is what the popular vote says.
>

I never said "landslide". It wasn't a landslide. And yes, I would agree the country is pretty evenly divided. We don't need a cartogram to tell us that. :)

At the end of the day, the name of the game is the EC, and both candidates knew that. Their campaign strategies are supposed to focus on that. I think the most interesting comment has come from Obama himself, who indirectly slammed the HRC campaign for not being aggressive enough in certain states.

My entire point goes back to the weight of the "popular vote" claim. Again, that's not definite because of the absentee ballot/strength of victory issue. But even if she did win the popular vote, it does not change the fact that Trump won 60% of the states, that HRC won less states than Sanders during the primaries, and less states than either McCain or Romney.

But even if we look at the popular vote - Trump didn't do much better than either McCain or Romney. But HRC did far worse than Obama. She couldn't get the votes that Obama got, and now she's incorrectly blaming some of this on Comey (which is laughable)

From the beginning, the HRC campaign likely wanted Trump to win the Republican nomination, because they were supremely confident they could crush Trump in the general election. Well, anyone except the faithful HRC supporters knew the truth - that HRC was a horrible candidate with risks. And once again, I quote Colin Powell's line about "everything HRC crushes, she screws up with hubris".