As you well know, the picture is misleading. Most of those big red states are sparsely populated.

Yes. I already understand that you and the rest of the elites on either coast feel that "fly over" country isn't worth much. How would you people in the big cities like Philadelphia and NYC survive if it weren't for the country mice who provide food?

This site has some good maps that take population into account: http://www-personal.umich.edu/~mejn/election/2016/. I'll link a couple directly.

Here's one that shows results by state, adjusting for population:

http://www-personal.umich.edu/~mejn/election/2016/statepop1024.png

Here's one that shows results by county, adjusting for population:

http://www-personal.umich.edu/~mejn/election/2016/countycartrb512.png

I did not even bother to look at the links that you posted. I already know how biased they will be so I don't want to waste my time. We all know that there are lies, damned lied and statistics. Anyone can find anything to back up their POV if they look hard enough. VBG.

As for 20 states vs. 30, if it's the sheer number that you're looking at, then you're also saying that when evaluating results from, say, New York state, the counties in and around NY city that are densely populated should count for the same as the counties upstate that are sparsely populated. That's certainly not democracy.

I understand. you think that democracy is allowing a few urban population centers like Philadelphia, NYC and LA to make decisions for the rest of the country. Why wouldn't you? You live in one of them. And, IMHO, you already think that YOU are qualified to make decisions for everyone else.

I'll point out that Obama had larger victories both times and lots of folks denied that he had a mandate.

So what does that have to do with anything? Enlighten me....

I haven't gone digging back, but I wouldn't be surprised if you were one of those people.

Well, I think that you had better go digging then. I was unhappy with the election results and I most certainly did not agree with his policies but I never said that he did not have a mandate. Nor did I join demonstrations and riots to protest him even though I did not agree with his policies. The double standard of the liberals is funny like that.

The Clinton Foundation has nothing to do with this. It was started after Bill's term in the White House. Besides that, the Clintons don't make any money from it. It's not a holding; it's a charitable foundation.

ROFL and LOL!!!!! You ARE joking, aren't you? Too Funny!!!!!!

FWIW, George W. Bush's ethics lawyer is among those saying he needs to divest. Here he is on CNN:

Oh. Is that the same GWB that refused to accept Trump as the nominee because his brother Jeb was unable to continue the dynasty? No prejudice there...

Yeah, but he had a landslide in both the popular vote and the Electoral College. Also, he wasn't threatening fundamental civil liberties like freedom of the press and the right to vote. Trump is.

Once again, you are missing that little "IMO". I would never expect you to use "IMHO" because there is nothing humble about you - and you most certainly do not have opinions. You have decrees.