Of course, there's many problems with that, foremost being that you can't assume that those that didn't vote did so in the same relative percentages of support that those that did vote. For example, I imagine there's a higher percentage of Democrats/Clinton supporters in CA and NY that didn't vote compared to the alternatives, and the opposite is likely true of predominantly red states.
They were wrong on Brexit. They were wrong on Trump. Maybe once more countries have results like this the polsters and media will start actually engaging with real people.
The results will come in eventually that she lost the popular vote, but that feeling they cultivated will remain.
It is possible to win the popular vote but lose the election. I don't think anyone is spinning the fact she won the popular vote to mean she should've won.
The President is elected by the electoral college who aren't directed by popular vote but by electorates.
It seems like rather than address what I said, you decided to make baseless attacks against me.
This is the third-closest result in the electoral college since 1960 (first that included AK and HI). The next two were G. W. Bush's two wins. It's the second-tightest in the popular vote since then (the results I see have Clinton ahead by about 200K; JFK beat Nixon by ~100K).
Our most recent president, Obama, absolutely destroyed Trump's results as far as having a "mandate", if that's what winning is considered. He got twice as many electoral votes as McCain and a margin of 7% in the popular. The win over Romney was tighter but still in a different order than this election.
Reagan got a mandate in 1984. The talk of "mandate" this year is utter, complete, uncontestable political horse puckey.
So maybe she will break a million delta.