>exactly.
>
>no disrespect...but are you researching these things before
>you type them out?

are YOU? did i ever say that a democrat has won the EC without the popular vote? did i ever say they should have pursued that strategy? they quite simply should have pursued a strategy that would have won the electoral college, and the popular vote, in their case, would have fallen in line without any issue.

what matters in winning the presidency is the electoral college. republicans have figured that out and have managed to win two elections (two of the three they have won in this century) without it. yet the dems aren't figuring that out. yes, they would win *both* the popular vote and the electoral college, yet they managed to neglect two battleground states (WI, MI) and take a piss poor approach in another (PA, where every union household they lost would, purportedly, be replaced by two moderate Republican ones in places like Bucks County).

>you keep saying things dont matter that have historically been
>shown to matter. and matter a lot. in fact...entire
>elections have relied upon them mattering.

OK, who wins the presidency in a split? The candidate who won the populate vote or the one who won the electoral college? Draw a straight line from the answer to what matters. Yes, the Dems would have won *both* with an effective strategy, however, again, weighing which one matters more and which aspect was neglected is a very easy task.

>youre literally making stuff up to create outcomes based on
>completely hypothetical scenarios disproven by actual facts.

huh? the winner of the EC is the president. that's a FACT. the DNC did not learn from 2000 where they had a re-run look at this. more established candidate, off the Clinton tree, capable of winning the popular vote comfortably, etc. they turned around and made many of the same mistakes and innovated new errors.

>'lets completely ignore objectively demonstrated reality and
>throw out everything that actually happened just to wing it
>and try to reach our goal based on what i have a hunch could
>happen'.
>
>thats not how things work.

not sure what you're reading because you're suggesting i said they should have pursued a strategy i never even mentioned and then just kicking back a ton of indignation instead of responding to the substance of an argument, most of which you seem to be making up for yourself.