>>> This time, that candidate got more votes than any other Presidential candidate in history who wasn't named Obama.
>Right!
>And she even got more votes than George Washington got!!
>To the barrricades!!!
>Question:
>What candidate got the second highest total and wasn't named Obama?
>
>Seriously, here is the most thoughtful discussion I've seen of why the dems are getting lots of votes in dense areas while losing elections.
>
>http://www.nytimes.com/2016/12/22/opinion/one-problem-for-democratic-leaders-is-democratic-voters.html
>
>It makes sense, and if the trend continues, this party will be going the way of the Whigs in a few more cycles.

I read an interesting article yesterday that did a reframing. The democratic candidate for president won the popular vote by more than 2%. Democrats held all their Senate seats and picked up two more. They gained 6 seats in the house.

That doesn't sounds like voters don't like what Dems have to say. Expectations were very high and weren't met, but if you just look at the results alone, the message may be different.

The article also pointed out that the last time a Democrat succeeded a retiring two-term Democrat in the White House was (I think) 1836. For that matter (though not in the article), I think the only time in my lifetime that we had a President of the same party succeed a retiring two-term President was Bush in '88.

Tamar