The current rank-and-file Republicans claim to be Christians and put Christian Values high on their list of important traits in the holders of public office. Yet they voted overwhelmingly (according to polls) for a man that demonstrates none of those values.
Judging from several social media postings, people voted against the runner-up in the Presidential election because they were convinced that certain accusations were "facts," even though they could not cite a source for their information. They voted against her and for him because they could not tell the difference between fact and fiction. By itself, that is not too serious. As P.T. Barnum probably did not say, "There's a sucker born every minute." But the sad thing here is that those people did not want to know the difference between fact and fiction. Their pre-conceptions ruled. For many too many people in this country, actual critical rational thought is not only unlikely but something to be avoided at all costs. Both left and right have members that suffer from this malady, but it seems that those on the right far out-number those on the left. There is no doubt that the right has a much louder media voice.
I'd like to recommend this link to get a pretty good view on the matter: http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2014/04/18/on-the-liberal-bias-of-facts/?_r=0
Democrats talk about how the gerrymandering by the Republicans led to the Republican electoral college victory. But in fact, The Democratic candidate ran a poorly conceived campaign.
Her stated determination to take the high road when her opponent took the low road played well with her base, but meant little to the undecided, especially those undecideds that leaned right. She needed to take the gloves off and fight fire with fire.
Another thing that has been discussed is the three key states she lost: Wisconsin, Michigan, and Pennsylvania. She worked hard in Pennsylvania during the last week, but spent almost no time in Michigan and did not even visit Wisconsin. Her campaign thought those states were sewn up. Oops.
The Republican candidate did not win the popular vote. The Democratic candidate lost the electoral vote.
One additional note: This is my own observation; if it has been written anywhere else, I haven't seen it.
Eight years ago the conservative "machine" produced innumerable lies about Obama, from the birther question to the religious accusations to supposed criminal ties in Chicago and anything else they could think of. Truth was not a consideration. They continued this campaign of lies for the next eight years.
However, in 2008 Obama and his message of hope inspired many young people, computer savvy and familiar with social media, to form an organized opposition to that strategy. The opposition worked. In 2016, the Democratic candidate did not inspire any such loyalty or support.
The alternate candidate, Bernie Sanders, did inspire that support. If the DNC had allowed Sanders to compete fairly for the nomination, there's a good chance he would have won the general election.
This election was never about issues, despite the Democratic candidate's attempt to make it so. It was an election based on character. Bernie Sanders did not have the exploitable character issues the final candidate had.
The worst thing is that the Republicans—politicians that do not hesitate to lie or use any deplorable dirty trick to keep their party in power—has control of both legislative houses and may well have a majority in the Supreme Court.
These people have shown zero respect for ethics (they tried to gut the independent House ethics committee), truth, or the opinions of the American people.
Ladies and gentlemen, let us pray.