In a strongly divided country, interpreting anything as a clear public mandate can be disastrous.
"In a strongly divided country, interpreting anything as a clear public mandate can be disastrous."
Only true if the way voting happened didn't disenfranchise voters. Yet we know that the way voting happened, with gerrymandering and discriminatory rules in some states, did disenfranchise voters.
Because I see the candidate that clamored loudest about the system being rigged won.
And a more recent article that reviews how the election went: https://www.thenation.com/article/the-gops-attack-on-voting-...
Look at who Trump is appointing, who his policies will hurt, and tell me who you think the system is rigged for?
Can you find any articles about white, Republican voters unable to vote? I'm going to keep trying and will post back if I can.
> I can't fathom you interpreting the result as a "loud mandate." The presidential race has been extremely tight with ~200,000 separating the two. Is that a clear mandate?
> No, it is a clear indication of the divisions in our country.
Yes, the country is divided. A single party taking all three major government divisions is as loud a mandate as you can expect in a strongly divided country.