ABOUT THAT POPULAR VOTE THAT HILLARY WON

Picture, if you will, a game identical to classical chess. Only instead of needing to capture the opponent's king in order to win, you need to capture both of his bishops. Or something like that.

Do you think that that game would look anything like the chess we know about? It's pretty easy to see that even though the board looks the same and the pieces move the same, the strategy involved would be quite different. You wouldn't have the same openings; the theoretical point values of the pieces would be yugely different; the grandmasters would have very different systems, and so on. But most importantly, you wouldn't be able to argue "B-b-but I took his king first!" after losing a game.

The rules of the election were pretty clear since before the beginning of the campaign, right? Every party involved knew fully well that the stakes of the presidency would be decided by the 538 votes of the electoral college, right?

Picture, if you will, an identical election campagin but instead of having to win the electoral college, you had to win the popular vote in order to become president.

Now, do you think that that campaign would have looked anything like what we saw unfold during the last 18 months? It's pretty easy to see that even though the candidates are the same and the people are the same, the strategy involved would be quite different. Candidates would have campaigned in a quite different way and in different places; the relative importance of votes in different counties would de vastly different; and so on. But most importantly, you wouldn't be able to argue "B-b-but I won the electoral college!" after losing that election.

If you're still sour, you can always resort to saying "Bah, most people are stupid and uninformed anyway."

But don't forget that most people voted for Hillary.