>>She still got more votes than he did. Dictatorship of an elected minority.
>
>I'm really surprised that, to this day, people hang on to that argument.
>
>Granted, the 2016 results were quite unusual. But it can happen.
>
>Trump won 30 of 50 states. Let's think about that....Bernie Sanders won more states in the Democratic primaries (22) in 2016 than HRC won in the general election (20).
>
>Trump knew there was no way he'd win California or New York. So he didn't bother campaigning much. She had about 6 million more popular votes in those 2 states, and was roughly a net 3 million behind collectively in the other 48 states.
>
>Yes, I realize someone could say, "you can't discount California and NY...they are part of the country as well". I'm certainly not discounting them. But what that highlights is just how much "middle America" despised HRC.
>
>To this day, I'm surprised Trump won PA. PA almost always votes D. But the turnout in the major PA cities (where HRC expected better turnout) was low. And that going back to Bill's point....
>
>I have no idea how the 2016 election would have turned out, had it been run all long on a popular vote. But certainly the entire campaigning strategy would have changed.
>
>Sorry, Nick - but the "popular vote" argument for HRC holds no actual water.

I'm really surprised that you're holding onto the electoral college. That electoral device is getting increasingly out of kilter with reality. Add to that that the elected President is way out on the extreme end of the Republican part makes it even more absurd. You're being ruled by a government of big business and extreme religion. Personally I hope those fundemental Christians using trump to push their extreme views get well judged by their god.

Glad you're well BTW.