Hard Choices: Why Trump won and how the Dems must change (Lyin' Steve's autopsy)

[‼realJohnEwards‼]

well, religious liberty can also be described as the right live free of religion, but i doubt the US become france anytime soon.

That's freedom of religion, religious liberty is an entirely different subject as it deals with religious objections.

If you object to the Constitution on religious grounds, go move to Poland

[‼realJohnEwards‼]

The problem with so much of this well-thought out analysis comes down to this:

"The Dems won the most votes, and therefore they must change."

"The Dems policies are more popular than the Republicans policies, and therefore they must change them"

The logic is totally screwed, because the EC and house districting are totally screwed. It ends up with the Dems having to appeal to different people, rather than more people, which effectively means some kinds of people are more important than others.

Which isn't a nice conclusion

While you layout a cohearent thought... it isn't correct. 
1) The popular vote is next to irrelevant.
2) Trump didn't try to win the popular vote, Clinton didn't try to win it either.
3) Trying to downplay a loss because you are in the margin of error of a nearly irrelevant stat isn't a good way to go. 
4) This is the "United States of America", not the "Mass of Americans in a single entity", so this naive abolish the electoral college stuff needs to stop (thats in general not in response)   

This ignores his main point, which is that the EC values some people's interests above others'. This is anathema to its original intent, which was to protect all points of view.

[‼realJohnEwards‼]

The problem with so much of this well-thought out analysis comes down to this:

"The Dems won the most votes, and therefore they must change."

"The Dems policies are more popular than the Republicans policies, and therefore they must change them"

The logic is totally screwed, because the EC and house districting are totally screwed. It ends up with the Dems having to appeal to different people, rather than more people, which effectively means some kinds of people are more important than others.

Which isn't a nice conclusion

While you layout a cohearent thought... it isn't correct.  
1) The popular vote is next to irrelevant.
2) Trump didn't try to win the popular vote, Clinton didn't try to win it either.
3) Trying to downplay a loss because you are in the margin of error of a nearly irrelevant stat isn't a good way to go.  
4) This is the "United States of America", not the "Mass of Americans in a single entity", so this naive abolish the electoral college stuff needs to stop (thats in general not in response)    

This ignores his main point, which is that the EC values some people's interests above others'. This is anathema to its original intent, which was to protect all points of view.

The EC intent was similar to, but not "protect all points of view".  
It was to encourage a diversity of interests and regions pick the winner... and also prevent mob rule
It just did that, so I don't understand the point.
Dems need to get broader and more diverse than a small footprint of urban interests in a minimum number of states, basically on the coasts.  

    

Trump lost every race but whites, every income group but 50k-100k, and most of his supporters were not "strongly favorable" towards him. He does not reflect the needs of interests of Americans at large. Also, which candidate was "mob"-supported again? I seem to remember some crowd sizes saying otherwise...