[grzm]

There are three things you can say about the popular vote in the 2016 US Presidential Election:

- the result of the popular vote and the electoral college were not the same

- the popular vote/electoral college split confirms that the country is very split and that Trump does not have a mandate.

- the electoral college may not be the best way to elect the president

What is much harder to argue is that the results of the popular vote would have been the same if the election were based on the popular vote. Both campaigns were run with the Electoral College — not the popular vote — in mind. The GOTV efforts were similarly run with the Electoral College — not the popular vote — in mind. Voters themselves to some extent take into account the Electoral College when deciding whether to vote and who to vote for. Many people choose not to vote if they're in a state where their vote may not matter much. Some people trade votes. Some people choose which candidate they vote for (for example, third party candidates) depending on the likelihood of their vote effectiveness.

And all of this needs to take into account how few voters turned out in general. This is nothing new, of course, but it does bear keeping in mind when evaluating statements like "the majority of American voters".

Oh, there's a fourth thing as well:

It's very distracting from other important issues, from both sides. Some (not all) Clinton supporters hold it up as validation that Clinton should have been president. Some (not all) Trump supporters (and Trump himself) view the popular vote important enough to repeat claims that voter fraud is the only reason Trump didn't win the popular vote as well. At this point there are more important issues to focus on. One of which may be the role of the Electoral College.

[davesque]

All of that may be true, but it's still valid to point out the popular vote discrepancy as a response to the claim that the American people chose Trump. As an American voter who opposed Trump during the election, I feel especially entitled to do so in response to someone who criticizes us as being "stupid" for having done something that many of us don't feel responsible for having done. Indeed, if further evidence surfaces of Putin's involvement in the election, I'll feel even more secure in my opinion.

[grzm]

I completely understand where you're coming from. I also know that phrasing it the way you have, without any additional context, very often results in semantic, distracting discussions like those that followed, distracting from the very valid point you're making.

When making a similar point, I focus on how clearly split the country is and the record-low unfavorability of both major party candidates. Hard to argue with either of those, and clearly demonstrates that Trump can't accurately be described as having a mandate. It's also generally non-partisan.

It also reminds everyone that Clinton was by no means a great candidate either, which also is well worth keeping in mind. So much of the rhetoric on either side during the campaign was "how can you vote for that candidate?", pointing out the flaws, rather than extolling the virtues of the candidate one was going to vote for. If Clinton had carried the Electoral College, we wouldn't be discussing this under "Trump Fires Acting Attorney General", but the split and polarization of the country would likely be just as strong, just on different topics.

[davesque]

You say what you've mentioned is a reminder of how Clinton wasn't a great candidate as though that's simply a fact that we must recall. However, I (and, I think, others here) have felt that the main criticisms of her were at worst based in complete falsehoods and at best strongly influenced by an overall public mood which was forged by fake news and demagoguery. The weakness of Clinton's candidacy is not an established fact is is definitely up for debate.

[grzm]

I'm not a political scholar, and would be a terrible politician, so I welcome criticism of these points. I don't think I'm going to be saying anything new, or even complete.

It may be a tautology, but I would like to define a "great candidate" as one who is able to win the position they're running for. One might argue that it's about how qualified you are for the office, and I have a lot of sympathy for that. I want smart, experienced people to represent me. An essential part of being a great candidate is being able to be elected, not only about how well one would perform in office. So my argument is primarily pragmatic.

Hillary ran for the presidency in 2008 and 2016, losing the Democratic nomination to Obama in 2008, and the 2016 election to Trump. In both cases, Hillary's long experience in politics (which one could argue is an essential part of her qualifications as a good candidate) wasn't enough to overcome other charismatic qualities of her opponents. This has been something that's dogged her for as long as I remember her being involved in national politics.

I think there's a reasonable argument to be made that the fact that she's a woman has worked against her; I say this not because I think that her being a woman is makes her unfit for office in any way. In the political context of the United States at the time she's run, she needs to be an exceptional candidate to overcome the biases for whom her gender is an issue.

Your points about fake news and demagoguery have some weight. There were way too many distractions during the campaign. That said, an important part of being a great candidate is being able to weather those effectively.

Both Trump and Clinton had record-breaking unfavorable ratings:

https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/americans-distaste-for-...

You don't get ratings like this as a great candidate.

I don't find these reasons satisfying from the standpoint of "that's how I wish it were". I'm not sure that any of this will be convincing if you believe it comes down to fake news and demagoguery, as you can use those to ultimately excuse any of reasons. Nothing about the entire campaign was satisfying, in my opinion.