Of course you don't. It doesn't fit with your narrative. But there are always a significant number of late deciders, and they broke heavily in favor of Trump. Remember, Trump didn't win by much.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...to-elect-donald-trump/?utm_term=.275f602f0931
I don't think I need "evidence" to support my assertion that many people who voted for either of them weren't thrilled by their vote. You're not particularly objective regarding politics are you?
Actually, I'm very objective. It's in my nature. The moniker the attach to my Brigs Myers personality type is the "logician". I'm a pretty logical guy. I'm about as objective has humans come, and I have supported both Republicans and Democrats. I last McCain back when he first represented himself as a political maverick. I have no party loyalty, and I'm like George Washington in that I don't like political parties.
Cute, but no one said they were. There are other alternatives than voting for Republicans. Frustrated Democrats can and do vote for alternative candidates or not at all; whereas Republicans tend to fall in line as they did last year and vote for the party nominee.
Let's put this into perspective, you asserted most of the people voted for both Trump and Clinton even though you they didn't like either of them. There is no evidence of that, though I'm sure there were many Sanders supporters who were not thrilled with Hillary. Many Democrats did vote for Clinton and they were very passionate about their vote for her as evidenced by the large crowds who attended her rallies. They truly loved her, and Trump has many folks who truly and passionately supported him as demonstrated by the crowds who followed him, though I'm sure there were many Republicans who voted for him simply because he was a Republican, and it's the Republican thing to do, e.g. Paul Ryan.
What does that mean exactly, and how is that relevant? Clinton did win the majority by almost 3 million votes: the same margin of votes garnered by Obama. But Obama won and Clinton lost owing to the very undemocratic aspects of our government.
The fact is there is no equivalence between the Republican and Democratic Parties. Trump lied at every opportunity. Clinton didn't call for Trump's arrest. There were no calls for "lock him up" as there were on the Republican side of the fence. Democrats ran a much more clean and honest campaign than did Trump and his Republicans. The equivalence you have attempted to draw is a fiction.
Just because you are very partisan, it doesn't make me any less objective. Look how far you have sunk. You cannot support your assertions, i.e. beliefs, with reason and fact so you resort to ad hominem. That's not a logical argument. That's a fallacious argument of desperation.
You are not a Republican, but you always propagate the Republican cause and preach and defend Republican talking points even to the point of repeating Republican talking points verbatim, e.g. stuffing stuff down your throats. Who do you think you are fooling? I think the only one you are fooling is yourself.
I don't know what it is about Republicans but they have this notion Democrats are always stuffing stuff down their throats.
You need to take your own advice and stop deluding yourself.
Well, I think that's a very naive view, and I don't see anyone blaming Trump supporters for all of their problems. Hillary and Obama won the popular votes by similar margins. Where it not for the undemocratic aspects of our government, Hillary Clinton would be POTUS and Democrats would control both houses of congress. That's a fact.
Democrats know the have a problem with rural areas and appealing to lesser educated whites. They know the undemocratic aspects of our government, the Electoral College and gerrymandering, are problems for them. They aren't that dumb, and they are preparing for future elections. But the problem isn't the candidate, it's also and more importantly, a structural problem with our democracy.
That's why Democrats are restructuring and refocusing. Obama isn't walking silently into the night as his predecessors have done. He will be devoting a great deal of time refocusing and reorganizing the party base. In 2010 Republicans controlled the redistricting in most states, and that has allowed the Republican Party to control congress for most of this decade. Obama's mission is to make sure that doesn't happen again. In a few years, there will be another census, and another redistricting. Obama intends to make sure Democrats have say in that process.
It's not enough for Democrats to offer a "better candidate". They need also need to address the structural problems they face. There really wasn't anything wrong with Clinton. She was a good candidate as evidenced by the popular vote counts. But it takes more than just a good candidate to win, Democrats also have to address the structural challenges they face, e.g. the Electoral College, gerrymandering, etc.
Our warring ways...really? You sound like some of the Russian trolls on this site. Bernie Sanders raised so much traction because he is a charismatic individual and charisma counts. Hillary was more supportive of Wall Street than Trump? I don't know about that. But judging by Trump's nominees, it's difficult to find a more Wall Street friendly crowd than the people Trump has appointed to his cabinet and regulatory agencies. Clinton's most ardent supporters were no friends of Wall Street, e.g. Senator Warren, Senator Sanders, et al.
You don't like Hillary. That doesn't mean everyone doesn't like Hillary. More people voted for Hillary than voted for Trump. You keep ignoring that fact.
