Irrelevant and sour grapes. The “game” is played to win the most Electoral College votes, not the popular vote. If the rules were different, the game would be played differently.
As an example from another hotly-contested endeavor, look at the 2003 MLB World Series. As we all know, the MLB World Series winner is the first team that wins 4 games in a head-to-head series. In 2003, that was the Florida Marlins. If after the series, the losing Yankees followed the WaPo model, they’d be indignant, saying they should be the declared winner, because they scored more total runs and had more total hits.
Of course, you don’t change the rules after the fact - unless you’re a whiny Dem.
It is very apt.
California could have voted 100% Hillary, but in the end it is ONE state, with 55 EVs.
Problem for democrats is that there are 50 state "games" that determine the winner.
So, yep the Marlins could have won 4 games by a score of 1-0, hell make it even more ridiculous, like the Yankees making so many errors and hit by pitches, that the Marlins basically prevailed by incompetence.
It doesn't MATTER if the Yankees won three games by 50 to zero.
No baseball fan would complain.
Because those are the rules.