I have compiled the attached comparison of national US voting numbers for Trump and Clinton using data from Business Insiders. It provides data on exit poll survey estimates of voting patterns by sex, wealth, age, urbanity, attitudes, education and race, extrapolated to total numbers.

Thank you, Robert. I wonder whether, given the failure of polling to predict the winner, we can have faith in the accuracy of any polling data, but one thing we do know is that Clinton won the poular vote by more than 2 million.

The numbers for the third party candidates are said to be significant in delivering the victory to Trump. In three key states, Jill Stein's vote total was greater than Trump's margin of victory. Supposedly the more Sanders-minded voters went for Stein believing that Clinton had the election won anyway.

http://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/ ... er-spoiler

DWill wrote:but one thing we do know is that Clinton won the poular vote by more than 2 million.

Looking at individual state totals eliminates the false impression of the popular vote margin in Hillary's favor.

Four States, California, New York, Illinois and (I'm including Texas because of the surprisingly high number of Hillary votes). Gave Hillary the margin she has, but we know the system is designed to prevent this type of state population density from controlling national elections.

The demographic poll data attached to the opening post provides useful trends that are worth more than a few grains of salt.

Older conservative suburban and small town white middle income men gave the election to Trump. This group, traditionally called "Breadwinners", is hotly maligned by neocommunists, and forced into social invisibility in liberal circles.

However, their lead role in delivering prosperity and stability for the USA enabled their views to prove decisive in this election.

Congratulations Mr. Trump. Keep the liberals out.

Taylor wrote:

DWill wrote:but one thing we do know is that Clinton won the poular vote by more than 2 million.

Looking at individual state totals eliminates the false impression of the popular vote margin in Hillary's favor.

Four States, California, New York, Illinois and (I'm including Texas because of the surprisingly high number of Hillary votes). Gave Hillary the margin she has, but we know the system is designed to prevent this type of state population density from controlling national elections.

Taylor, isn't it indisputably true that Clinton garnered the most votes, and by a significant margin? That's a fact, but people are arguing, as you seem to be, that it's a good thing that the popular vote doesn't always determine the winner. The idea seems to be that the electoral system allows regions to have more influence, regardless of how much population they have.

I have to say, Robert, you're scaring me.

So we have a lot of neocommunists in the country now? Are they balancing out the neo fascists?

DWill wrote:Taylor, isn't it indisputably true that Clinton garnered the most votes, and by a significant margin? That's a fact, but people are arguing, as you seem to be, that it's a good thing that the popular vote doesn't always determine the winner. The idea seems to be that the electoral system allows regions to have more influence, regardless of how much population they have.

DWill, It is undeniably true to me that Hillary won the overall popular vote. If we were to fallow strictly the popular vote then those states I named would be running the show always, and would be by virtue of their larger populations. So I ask, Is that fair? CA,ILL,NY and TX running the show now and forever. It has been my understanding that the college was put in place in part to keep that from happening. Personally I do not think that eliminating the college is a good fix and I'm sorry to say that I do not know what a good fix would be. What I do know is that the Dems and GOP have had 239 years to perfect the system for their benefit and that it is no small task for third parties to elbow their way into that binary system. This is a failing of the electorate not the system, the people have to be the muscle/money behind those lesser parties to check the lock on power that has become run of the mill. This is particularly true in this era in which there seems to be so little trust in the Federal Gov't that voter apathy is once again on the rise. In 2016 it was the apathy of democratic voters in those battle ground states that put Trump in power. If we look at state by state totals Trump won the majority of states. that seems fair to me.

I'm editing to add that it truly is a state level process, the Dems have been failing at the state level since passage of the ACA. In essence Obama care laid the red carpet for Donald Trump. When Massachusetts elected Scott Brown to replace Ted Kennedy the ball to Trump started rolling down the hill.

DWill wrote:I have to say, Robert, you're scaring me.

So we have a lot of neocommunists in the country now? Are they balancing out the neo fascists?

That scary neo-fascist photo of Trump with the automatic weapon was from the New York Review of Books, in a lead article explaining why the Republican FBI head should not have made his public announcement about Clinton’s emails.

While my sentiments are with the left in many areas, my sympathy for Trump arises from my respect for people who voted for him and my steadily growing view that the ideological left is incapable of constructive dialogue with people of conservative views. Neo-communist is a harsh term, as is neo-fascist, but it illustrates the growing cultural polarisation across the Western world.

There are several areas which I think are in need of fundamental global paradigm shift, involving a new synthesis of views of right and left. These areas include religion, climate change, role of government, business regulation and gender relations. I believe that the election result can prompt serious respectful analysis of why the Clinton views on these topics are viewed with contempt by conservative culture, and how new thinking may be possible.

Robert Tulip wrote:

DWill wrote:I have to say, Robert, you're scaring me.

So we have a lot of neocommunists in the country now? Are they balancing out the neo fascists?

That scary neo-fascist photo of Trump with the automatic weapon was from the New York Review of Books, in a lead article explaining why the Republican FBI head should not have made his public announcement about Clinton’s emails.

While my sentiments are with the left in many areas, my sympathy for Trump arises from my respect for people who voted for him and my steadily growing view that the ideological left is incapable of constructive dialogue with people of conservative views. Neo-communist is a harsh term, as is neo-fascist, but it illustrates the growing cultural polarisation across the Western world.

There are several areas which I think are in need of fundamental global paradigm shift, involving a new synthesis of views of right and left. These areas include religion, climate change, role of government, business regulation and gender relations. I believe that the election result can prompt serious respectful analysis of why the Clinton views on these topics are viewed with contempt by conservative culture, and how new thinking may be possible.

Where you are just now is still unclear to me, Robert. I can be forgiven for wondering, with your posting of the photo, the admonition to keep the liberals out, and the admiration for white males, whether you had developed a thing for the alt-right. As for overcoming polarization, demonizing the liberals doesn't seem to be the way to go.

Taylor wrote:DWill, It is undeniably true to me that Hillary won the overall popular vote. If we were to fallow strictly the popular vote then those states I named would be running the show always, and would be by virtue of their larger populations. So I ask, Is that fair? CA,ILL,NY and TX running the show now and forever.

And don't forget Florida. This, in a nutshell, is a strong argument for the electoral college. It really is irrelevant that Hillary won the popular vote because that's not how we select presidents. I think we could probably modify the electoral college to make it more in line with the popular vote, but that process would surely become contentious.

I do agree with Robert Tulip somewhat in that this election was a stunning affirmation of the democratic process. Trump is about as anti establishment as they come. The establishment has become mired in business as usual to the point that we have become an oligarchy, and neither side was very different from the other. Trump's election shows that the system works.

Power to the people.

Unfortunately, Trump has very few virtues besides being not Hillary. He has shown little understanding of our great traditions or how the real world works. Besides being anti-tradition and anti-establishment, he's also anti-intellectual, anti-logic, anti-reason. He's the very opposite of the great intellectuals like James Madison, Alexander Hamilton, John Jay, and Thomas Jefferson, who wrote our constitution. Those who voted for Trump will almost certainly come to lose hope when Trump fails to deliver on his many promises.