Heck, why not just assume most of them?
Because if some Trump supporters are sophomoric and possible Holocaust deniers, why bother paying attention to what any of them say or claim? They're clearly all halfwit racist degenerates who hate women and the LGBTQ crowd. If the world were rid of them, it would be a much better place.
Yes, it's much better this way.
- the result of the popular vote and the electoral college were not the same
- the popular vote/electoral college split confirms that the country is very split and that Trump does not have a mandate.
- the electoral college may not be the best way to elect the president
What is much harder to argue is that the results of the popular vote would have been the same if the election were based on the popular vote. Both campaigns were run with the Electoral College — not the popular vote — in mind. The GOTV efforts were similarly run with the Electoral College — not the popular vote — in mind. Voters themselves to some extent take into account the Electoral College when deciding whether to vote and who to vote for. Many people choose not to vote if they're in a state where their vote may not matter much. Some people trade votes. Some people choose which candidate they vote for (for example, third party candidates) depending on the likelihood of their vote effectiveness.
And all of this needs to take into account how few voters turned out in general. This is nothing new, of course, but it does bear keeping in mind when evaluating statements like "the majority of American voters".
Oh, there's a fourth thing as well:
It's very distracting from other important issues, from both sides. Some (not all) Clinton supporters hold it up as validation that Clinton should have been president. Some (not all) Trump supporters (and Trump himself) view the popular vote important enough to repeat claims that voter fraud is the only reason Trump didn't win the popular vote as well. At this point there are more important issues to focus on. One of which may be the role of the Electoral College.
When making a similar point, I focus on how clearly split the country is and the record-low unfavorability of both major party candidates. Hard to argue with either of those, and clearly demonstrates that Trump can't accurately be described as having a mandate. It's also generally non-partisan.
It also reminds everyone that Clinton was by no means a great candidate either, which also is well worth keeping in mind. So much of the rhetoric on either side during the campaign was "how can you vote for that candidate?", pointing out the flaws, rather than extolling the virtues of the candidate one was going to vote for. If Clinton had carried the Electoral College, we wouldn't be discussing this under "Trump Fires Acting Attorney General", but the split and polarization of the country would likely be just as strong, just on different topics.
It may be a tautology, but I would like to define a "great candidate" as one who is able to win the position they're running for. One might argue that it's about how qualified you are for the office, and I have a lot of sympathy for that. I want smart, experienced people to represent me. An essential part of being a great candidate is being able to be elected, not only about how well one would perform in office. So my argument is primarily pragmatic.
Hillary ran for the presidency in 2008 and 2016, losing the Democratic nomination to Obama in 2008, and the 2016 election to Trump. In both cases, Hillary's long experience in politics (which one could argue is an essential part of her qualifications as a good candidate) wasn't enough to overcome other charismatic qualities of her opponents. This has been something that's dogged her for as long as I remember her being involved in national politics.
I think there's a reasonable argument to be made that the fact that she's a woman has worked against her; I say this not because I think that her being a woman is makes her unfit for office in any way. In the political context of the United States at the time she's run, she needs to be an exceptional candidate to overcome the biases for whom her gender is an issue.
Your points about fake news and demagoguery have some weight. There were way too many distractions during the campaign. That said, an important part of being a great candidate is being able to weather those effectively.
Both Trump and Clinton had record-breaking unfavorable ratings:
https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/americans-distaste-for-...
You don't get ratings like this as a great candidate.
I don't find these reasons satisfying from the standpoint of "that's how I wish it were". I'm not sure that any of this will be convincing if you believe it comes down to fake news and demagoguery, as you can use those to ultimately excuse any of reasons. Nothing about the entire campaign was satisfying, in my opinion.
i.e., he won the popular vote, except for California.
You can argue equally well that Clinton won the electoral college except for Wyoming, North Dakota, Alaska, South Dakota, Montana, Idaho, West Virginia, Kansas, Utah, Arkansas, Mississippi, Iowa, Oklahoma, Kentucky, Louisiana and South Carolina. That excludes about the same number of people as your argument, and is equally silly.
Well, in 1996 we re-elected Clinton, despite demonstrable evidence that he was a terrible president and an execrable human being. In 2004 we re-elected Bush, despite him violating his oath to the constitution. In 2012 we re-elected Obama, a man whose mediocrity and incompetence make Carter look like a capable executive (and our other choice was a business executive who couldn't even get a simple get-out-the-vote programme to run correctly).
Let history be the judge, and I doubt it agrees with your comparisons.