>>
>>Well, in fact, what the founders wanted was to prevent the country was having an unqualified person or a demagogue. They feared the vote of the people. Sadly, this year, the Electoral College is doing exactly the opposite and giving us an unqualified demagogue.
>>
>
>I hope you can see the irony - that eight years ago, many felt we were given an unqualified demagogue. :)
>
>On your other post, I fail to understand why people are getting so worked up about "mandate". I've seem people claim "mandate" status when they win by a slim margin. It's a meaningless term and one that gets used after every election. Trump and a number of his supporters are full of braggadocio, and I just ignore these "mandate" claims. They are neither important nor interesting.
>
>And there's another topic that's neither important nor interesting: the national popular vote (which for some reason many continue to cling to) - it is 100% irrelevant because it wasn't in play. If popular vote mattered, both campaigns would have approached the election differently and the results likely would have been different. (Many state examples, such as how well Trump would have done in California if he had not essentially written it off)
>
>To borrow an analogy many are using, complaining about the popular vote is like complaining that your football team picked up twice as many yards in a game, but lost on the only scoreboard that counts.
>
>Candidly, pushing the "but she won the popular vote narrative" calls into question critical thinking (and even reasoning on a number of related issues).

I'm only pushing that as it relates to the question of whether he has a mandate, not the results.

Tamar