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

Actually, in some of your prior posts where you referenced links with alternative election maps (which are rather contrived to fit an "after-the-face" narrative), I think you *are" pushing back on the results in a subtle manner. Maybe not to point of saying HRC should have won, but certainly in a way to undercut Trump's victory.

Trump didn't get a mandate, and I don't see how anyone can reasonably claim he did. I think some people just obsess too much with how much of a braggart Trump is.

But there was one mandate that DID occur - the mandate against HRC. Trump won because there were enough people who were turned off by HRC. She ran a terrible campaign (so badly in fact, that Obama criticized her).

You had 2 candidates who were quite unpopular with American citizens - so something bizarre was likely to happen.

Right now, the Ds seem to fall into one of 3 general categories. One is silent and still in shock....one is acknowledging that the party has huge problems and needs new leadership....and one is still in huge denial of why HRC lost. The last segment cannot continue to blame Trump's victory on "idiots who voted for Trump" - there's an entirely different story there.

I certainly share some of the concerns of how Trump will actually govern. But I'm not impressed with the arguments about Trump violating rights, when those same Trump critics also made excuse after excuse regarding the collusion between the IRS/DOJ/DNC/FEC and other serious issues of corruption in this current administration.