Yes, Clinton won more votes than Trump. But good luck convincing Rust Belt voters... [View all]

They were the ones who decided the Electoral College outcome. And in the US, the Electoral College is what matters. Not the popular vote.

My own home state of California - the largest state in the country - rejected Donald Trump by a 30-point margin. I'm proud of that fact. But as far as I can tell, hell will freeze over before a Republican Party presidential nominee wins California - at least, at the rate things are going, and have been going for a few decades now. This is one of the safest of "blue" states. And consequently - and as a Californian myself, I hate this as much as anyone, but under our electoral system, it's the brutally unfair but undeniable truth - California is just about the last state that matters in a presidential election.

Again, I do not endorse or condone the Electoral College. I despise it as much as anyone. But the states who benefit the most from it are precisely the states that decide presidential elections. Including this year's. If we want a Democrat to win the Presidency, we would do well to remember this fact, rather than pat ourselves on the back that safely Democratic states continue to reject Republican nominees for President.

Whether the Democratic nominee wins 100% or 50.1% of the votes of my state, he or she will still win the same number of electoral votes from said state: 55. And the significant majority of states that are not safely "blue" - specifically, a majority of those states' voters and legislatures - are happy with this arrangement. That's the goddamn truth. Ignore it at your own peril.