11-25-2016, 11:21 PM
(11-25-2016, 03:34 PM)Duchess Wrote: Poor Hillary :(
It's gotta suck big time to compete so hard and lose, especially to the likes of Trump, but she's tough as nails professionally.
She should have paid more attention to the rust belt, but who knows if voters in those swing states would have gone for anyone but the change candidate anyway. MS was right; it's really rare for a party to win three or more straight presidencies and she was outwardly running for a third Obama term (with a side of Sanders).
Still, Clinton's popular vote exceeds Trump's by 2,000,000 now. Trump is poised to be the winner with the lowest or among the lowest percent of people's votes in history, and Clinton will be the loser with the highest percent of people's votes in history. I don't know if that makes it better or worse for Clinton, but it might result in a more serious non-partisan look at the election system and processes.
Clinton won't likely have earned 50%+ of the popular vote when all the ballots are counted; she will instead have won the plurality. I think the fact that Sanders and Trump were both Independents in reality + the fact that the 3rd party candidates got enough votes to keep the top two contenders below 50%........is a sign that the two-party monopoly is really weakening and future congressional and presidential candidates have a better chance of competing seriously without having to contort themselves under the Democratic and Republican umbrellas. That could be positive for Americans overall (if there's a greater push to help voters be more truthfully informed)...more options and, hopefully, less party-driven obstructionism.