Breaking news. Obama says Fox News partly to blame for Hillary losing

On a more relevant item, we need to come up with a plan to petition Trump to build the Death Star. Trump needs to get the cost down. Obama said it was too costly but how can we be great again without a Huge Death Star visible in our skies?

It could help with climate change too as it could block out a lot of the sunlight reaching the planet if it had an expandable shield.

Maybe instead of a Death Star we could start simple, like an energy defensive grid in space in orbit around the planet that gets activated and explodes large objects like asteroids when it approaches the grid. Some asteroids have trillions of dollars worth of heavy metals so that could pose a problem trying to explode a rock made of gold and titanium. I'm sure Trump can come up with a plan. :)

Not sure if it was that close after all. Trump tweeted that he deliberately focused on a strategy to win the electoral college and it was a blowout there. He said his strategy would have been different if it was decide by popular vote. Says he would have changed focus and concreted on just four states.

^^^ Trump sounds like a politician after all.

I call winning by only 3 or 4 states and by only a small percentage of people in those states as close.

All the after-action analysis makes a pretty convincing case that Hillary's ever-present hubris and arrogance, coupled with smart electoral-college-based campaigning by Trump, is exactly what's gone on. I can easily believe that the Trump campaign would have had a different strategy if this were popular vote. Electoral college lets Trump, for example, pretty much ignore California -- he's going to lose no matter what he does, but an electoral college strategy lets him practically ignore CA completely, whereas a popular vote strategy dictates some time and $ spent mobilizing at least the more conservative non-coastal areas.

Hey txtittyfag(dot) finally posted something funny and that I agree with!

A popular vote campaign could completely ignore Iowa, South Carolina, almost all of the lesser populated states and areas. Then everyone except the bigger states might feel really ignored. New York, Cailfornia, Florida could all enjoy months of campaigning. Everyone else could ask, what election? I wouldn't mind less phone calls, less campaign flyers. I get swamped with phone calls and Mail during the primaries because South Carolina is early in the primary process.

The Flyer I liked the best out of all candidates?
Trumps Thumbs up post card. I thought it was amusing and positive.
Not much to read either.

"coupled with smart electoral-college-based campaigning by Trump"
-------------------------------------------------------
Just ludicrous, @Subra. Trump's campaign was basically dumbed-down, stream-of-consciousness, narcissism. The simple message caught the attention of enough working-class white dudes, that it pulled him over the top. Trump and his staff were just as surprised as anyone else at the election results.

Best guess is that the affluent and big-business will do well under Trump, and many of these working-class whites will get slaughtered as they lose their health insurance and find that manufacturing jobs are not coming back. They deserve what they voted for.

OT: Four, FOUR counties in New York and ONE in California, gave clinton enough votes to "win" the popular vote, no matter if they were legal or not. For myself, I'll stick with the genius of our Founders!

Bloomberg said it was because Trump's Data Scientists saw something in the data that Hilary's did not. Does seem far fetched to me and that he tailored his messages accordingly.

It was none other than FDR himself who said that nothing in politics happens by accident. If something happens it was planned that way.

^^^ Lol. Exactly

"Trump's campaign was basically dumbed-down, stream-of-consciousness, narcissism. "

And he still beat Hillary. What does that say about her?

RM: Keeping in mind I voted for Clinton and think Trump is borderline retarded ... there have been multiple analyses around some of the key states, interviewing key Clinton campaign workers, whose consistent stories were along the lines of, "we told the national campaign that the state was closer than the polls believed, and what we saw was the Trump campaign making 10 trips to the state when Hillary made only one". Obviously, that can be self-serving as well ("it's not our fault the local campaign lost Wisconsin, the national campaign made huge blunders"), but subsequent analysis seems to show that's EXACTLY what happened. Now if you want to claim that this wasn't conscious decisions by the Trump campaign -- spending far more in what turned out to be exactly the key electoral college battleground states -- happy to hear the evidence, but hard to believe it's just luck. Obviously, Trump himself is bumbling through his positions and making things up on the fly, but the campaign investments seemed to play out well

Trumps electoral campaign was brilliant. He won.
Couldn't have won without Hillary though.

I was wondering who was going to insult less voters. It was a long drawn out contest and I'm not sure which candidate insulted the most voters. I think Hilary won that contest.