[eej71]

You can keep calling it manipulation all you want. But I truly believe both HRC's message reached the voters and that Trump's message also reached the voters and they chose accordingly. Are you suggesting that their respective messages weren't heard?

At no point did someone fail to deliver their message. HRC's message (to the extent that it could be parsed) just didn't click with a lot of people. Trump's did.

[iron0013]

But by vote count, Clinton’s message clicked with more people than Trump’s did. That’s why he had to rely on the electoral college to “win” by negative-several-million votes.

[eej71]

Why dwell on an irrelevant number? It's not material to the presidential election. At all. There is no reason the mass media should even report it. It's not germane to the outcome. It only serves to confuse everyone.

The rules for winning a presidential election are well known and well established. You have to win a majority of the electors spread over many states. This means composing a message that broadly resonates with the country. Trump did that. HRC did not.

[iron0013]

You said Clinton’s message “...just didn't click with a lot of people. Trump's did.” That’s a numerical comparison. Are you saying that X > X+3000000? It’s an incoherent claim, so find another argument.

[eej71]

Can we agree that the popular vote is irrelevant to the presidential election? And if so - why impute my words with that interpretation?

[arrosenberg]

It's only irrelevant for deciding who wins the office. You are making the argument that Trump won because his arguments were more popular among the electorate, which is provably false using the popular vote total.

Hillary Clinton's message resonated with over 3,000,000 more voters, however unfortunate their distribution was.

[malandrew]

Insofar as the presidential election is concerned, the electorate is the 538 people in the electoral college. Trump was more popular among the electorate not HRC.