And sometimes in the media:
1)It doesn’t matter that Russia may have hacked our election! We’ve interfered in lots of countries’ elections!
By that logic, if we were nuked it wouldn’t matter because after all, we’ve nuked other nations. Yes, it’s true we’ve put up authoritarian puppet governments and rigged elections in other countries, and that isn’t good—but the ideal should be “we don’t mess with theirs, they don’t mess with ours,” not a universal era of tampering.
2)Any variation of a geographic defense for Trump’s win: He won more counties than Clinton, which proves he really won the popular vote. Clinton wouldn’t have even won the popular vote without California so it doesn’t really count. The places where Real Americans live picked Trump.
I heard the same thing after Bush lost the popular vote in 2000. He won more of the country so that proves he appeals to more diverse people. Al Gore only won in big cities which are teaming with liberals and immigrants and not real Americans who are simple, plain-spoken folk living out in rural areas. But guess what, “popular vote” is not measured by geography, it’s measured by the number of voters. And the fact a lot of Clinton’s (or Gore’s) support came from a smaller geographical area doesn’t prove she’s less popular or that Trump’s support is more diverse. All it proves that relatively sparsely populated areas have outsized clout in the electoral college. Which, of course, Republicans are delighted with; it’s just that they still object that big cities and big states have outsized clout in the popular vote. In particular they object to the simple, obvious fact that the Republican candidate is massively unpopular, lost the popular vote and had a miserable electoral college showing.
Which is one reason to keep reminding them that it is so. Reality, as they say, has a liberal bias.
