The real bubble is in the heartland

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This seems like a great strategy for feeling superior and Losing more elections.

+1. The libs have learned nothing from the election. It's amazing.

Considering the fact that your orange hero garnered about 3 million less votes , I wouldn't be enthusiastic about telling anyone to learn anything

The problem with this thinking about HRC wining more votes (officially more like 2.9M) is that you can find all of them and more entirely in the 75 counties with the highest household income. These are areas where only about 14.5M votes were cast out of approximately 136M. I know the electoral college sucks, but it's unfortunately the law of the land. When all of your margin against an orange haired clown comes in concentrated pockets, you're clearly doing it wrong. If you want to defeat Trump and the noxious things he stands for, you've got to generate more enthusiasm in voters outside those 75 counties.

If you don't think there's nothing wrong with the average citizen of Wyoming having proportionally more representation, for example, than California, you are part of the problem.

And I said that where? Get out of your bubble! As long as that's the law of the land, were stuck. And getting it changed involves working within the system, unless you have a better suggestion?

BTW, your assumption is offensive, as I'm a former DC voter who's spent the hours waiting to vote in Presidential elections that I know downplay the votes of my R friends in DC. I feel the exact same way about my D friends in WY, AK, SC, MS, ID, etc. and my R friends in NY, MD, CA. These are the rules we are stuck with, at least for now. Giving me crap for putting additional detail to some oft quoted facts serves little purpose beyond your self congratulation and virtue signaling. Good bye.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This seems like a great strategy for feeling superior and Losing more elections.

+1. The libs have learned nothing from the election. It's amazing.

Considering the fact that your orange hero garnered about 3 million less votes , I wouldn't be enthusiastic about telling anyone to learn anything

The problem with this thinking about HRC wining more votes (officially more like 2.9M) is that you can find all of them and more entirely in the 75 counties with the highest household income. These are areas where only about 14.5M votes were cast out of approximately 136M. I know the electoral college sucks, but it's unfortunately the law of the land. When all of your margin against an orange haired clown comes in concentrated pockets, you're clearly doing it wrong. If you want to defeat Trump and the noxious things he stands for, you've got to generate more enthusiasm in voters outside those 75 counties.

If you don't think there's nothing wrong with the average citizen of Wyoming having proportionally more representation, for example, than California, you are part of the problem.

And I said that where? Get out of your bubble! As long as that's the law of the land, were stuck. And getting it changed involves working within the system, unless you have a better suggestion?

BTW, your assumption is offensive, as I'm a former DC voter who's spent the hours waiting to vote in Presidential elections that I know downplay the votes of my R friends in DC. I feel the exact same way about my D friends in WY, AK, SC, MS, ID, etc. and my R friends in NY, MD, CA. These are the rules we are stuck with, at least for now. Giving me crap for putting additional detail to some oft quoted facts serves little purpose beyond your self congratulation and virtue signaling. Good bye.

PP, your outrage goes way too far. Since when is it "offensive" or "in a bubble" to suggest that every American should have EQUAL representation, regardless of whether they happen to live in a wealthy county or one that voted for HRC instead of Trump?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Check out Hillary, Oprah, Michelle Obama, Meryl Streep, Madonna, Miley Cyrus, and the average stunted IQ heads of Hillary supporters. They all have huge heads because they're genetic progeny of the original bubble heads of Stooooopidia, a planet far beyond our galaxy. They were stowaways on Dr. Evil's flying dildo. When it crash landed, Mini Me's seed thrusted from his tiny thing to germinate the most ugly of the bubble heads which produced Cone Heads who made regular appearances on SNL. Since then, they have become most famous as Hillary's brain damaged gals. They voted for Barack Obama because they thought Barack was the new currency, and Obama was a new cellphone. They wanted some free shit, so they voted for an erstwhile community organizer whose career was exemplified by his ability to commune with organs.

What are you smoking or drinking?

Now that's the same question I've been wanting to ask morons who believe that Donald J. Trump, the constitutionally elected and therefore legitimate 45th President of the United States of America, is not our legitimate president. But then again, they're probably too brain damaged to give a coherent answer.

I guess they are just as brain damaged as Trump is since he tried the same trick while questioning Obama's birth place.

Tell us how you KNOW where Obama was born. Go ahead. I'll read your rationale. But before you begin, unless you're seen a certified copy of Obama's birth certificate, you don't KNOW where he was born. You'd be assuming where he was born.

Tell me you KNOW where Trump was born. Or GW Bush. Or Bill Clinton. Or GHW Bush. Or Reagan. Or the Queen of England.

Tell me you KNOW where you were born.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This seems like a great strategy for feeling superior and Losing more elections.

+1. The libs have learned nothing from the election. It's amazing.

Considering the fact that your orange hero garnered about 3 million less votes , I wouldn't be enthusiastic about telling anyone to learn anything

The problem with this thinking about HRC wining more votes (officially more like 2.9M) is that you can find all of them and more entirely in the 75 counties with the highest household income. These are areas where only about 14.5M votes were cast out of approximately 136M. I know the electoral college sucks, but it's unfortunately the law of the land. When all of your margin against an orange haired clown comes in concentrated pockets, you're clearly doing it wrong. If you want to defeat Trump and the noxious things he stands for, you've got to generate more enthusiasm in voters outside those 75 counties.

If you don't think there's nothing wrong with the average citizen of Wyoming having proportionally more representation, for example, than California, you are part of the problem.

And I said that where? Get out of your bubble! As long as that's the law of the land, were stuck. And getting it changed involves working within the system, unless you have a better suggestion?

BTW, your assumption is offensive, as I'm a former DC voter who's spent the hours waiting to vote in Presidential elections that I know downplay the votes of my R friends in DC. I feel the exact same way about my D friends in WY, AK, SC, MS, ID, etc. and my R friends in NY, MD, CA. These are the rules we are stuck with, at least for now. Giving me crap for putting additional detail to some oft quoted facts serves little purpose beyond your self congratulation and virtue signaling. Good bye.

PP, your outrage goes way too far. Since when is it "offensive" or "in a bubble" to suggest that every American should have EQUAL representation, regardless of whether they happen to live in a wealthy county or one that voted for HRC instead of Trump?

I made no claim about my feelings about equal representation of voters. I stated a fact that HRC's margin came in areas that were unrepresentative of the broader society. That's a fact. As long as we are stuck with this system, realizing that a program that caters to broader segments of society and has much more momentum behind is crucial to those who wish to defeat Trump and co. The rules are bad, but they are no surprise. That people who are proud of their fancy educations and who have ample resources miss this is what drives me batty. HRC was simply the embodiment of this delusion. Chuck Schumer and others held it as well. If you dislike Trump, it has proven to be a very bad idea.

You've got to up your game, anti-Trump folks!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This seems like a great strategy for feeling superior and Losing more elections.

Telling people what they want to hear won't necessarily make their lives better. Most of my family were tool and die makers, gas fitters, and in construction. They all lived very modestly and sent my generation off to college. But a lot of their friends didn't, and those kids are looking for someone to blame for the fact that the big auto plant jobs have gone away. Several decades ago, they lived in a city with no fewer than five auto plants. So to be an auto worker, you thought no matter what there was always some place you could get a job. So what happened? Was it foreigners? Trade deals?

The Ford plant closed in 2006 because people didn't buy SUV's when gas prices shot up.

The Corvette manufacturing went to Bowling Green Ky some time in the 80s, not because of unions or wages but because Kentucky cut a bigger tax deal. Thankfully a great many of those workers moved to Bowling Green, but the locals were pissed off because they were led to believe by politicians and the company that they would get jobs there.

The rest of Chevy went not to Mexico but Janesville Wisconsin. I believe the SUV crunch during the Iraq war gas hike killed those jobs in Janesville, too.

Chrysler had two plants where I grew up. Chrysler said they were going to upgrade those plants. But one plant that made minivans was closed. It went not to Mexico but Canada. I guess you could blame NAFTA (maybe?) but we probably gain more from free trade and certainly Canada is not beating us on regulations and labor practices. The second plant was closed, not due to Mexico but because of the 2009 bankruptcy.

What's left is one GM plant in the outer suburbs which may get more production now that gas prices are down and SUVs and pickups are coming back.

Nothing Trump has said would ever explain how 35,000 people in my hometown lost jobs over those decades. And nothing that he has proposed will bring those jobs back. Ironically the most meaningful improvement in their job situation comes from the drop in gas prices that caused by: increased production in the US, return of Iraqi production levels, re-introduction of Iranian oil, an increased numbers of people driving fuel efficient vehicles, and slowing growth in big economies like China. This will probably cause an increase in shifts at the remaining GM plant. As long as we don't do something stupid that causes oil prices to go up again, people will resume buying SUVs and trucks which are still profitable to make here. They will never be able to make economy sedans because the wages in those economy car plants are about as low as a burger flipping job, and they don't want that kind of job. If Trump cajoles those jobs to come back to America, it won't matter because no one is going to pay $30K for a Ford Focus. They just won't.

So if Trump's diagnosis of the problem is wrong, then his solution will be wrong. Barring luck, these disgruntled workers will still be disgruntled in 4 years. They will have a Republican House Senate and White House to hold accountable.

If you are from Detroit, believe you are talking about the Lake Orion GM plant. A lot of the jobs also left the area because of the 35 year decline of GM. Did politicians decide to have cars with rattles and engines that blew up at 90,000 miles? Did not enough tax cuts result in cars with terrible gas mileage while the Japanese ones were more efficient?

It was craptastic, insular, GM management that created a lot of these problems. So is Trump going to take GM back to the days of 50% market share.

No, I am not from Detroit.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Coming from the midwest, I thought this was very true:

Republicans have mastered wielding the struggles of poor white Americans as a cudgel against blacks, against Latinos, against women, against Jews and Muslims and LGBTQ folks. See them? They’re to blame for your struggle. You’re hurting because of them! I am tired of wealthy conservatives who have never set foot among us “white trash”—and sure as hell wouldn’t want their children marrying us—filming campaign commercials of themselves wading through star-spangled cornfields and ranting about the so-called “liberal bubble” and every buzzword that goes with it: Hollywood, communists, “college educated,” etc

Democrats have used the struggles of poor minorities as a cudgel against whites etc. as if they alone are the solution to change their station in life. Yet when in power, little to nothing changes.

You are wrong. Democrats do use the struggles, but not against whites. It's against the corp elite. Black people were brought over as slaves. We've always considered America to be systematically against us. Manufacturing left cities 30 years ago. When black unemployment went up, we were just considered lazy. When white unemployment increased in the heartland, it was because of NAFTA.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Coming from the midwest, I thought this was very true:

Republicans have mastered wielding the struggles of poor white Americans as a cudgel against blacks, against Latinos, against women, against Jews and Muslims and LGBTQ folks. See them? They’re to blame for your struggle. You’re hurting because of them! I am tired of wealthy conservatives who have never set foot among us “white trash”—and sure as hell wouldn’t want their children marrying us—filming campaign commercials of themselves wading through star-spangled cornfields and ranting about the so-called “liberal bubble” and every buzzword that goes with it: Hollywood, communists, “college educated,” etc

Democrats have used the struggles of poor minorities as a cudgel against whites etc. as if they alone are the solution to change their station in life. Yet when in power, little to nothing changes.

That's untrue. You just tune out the things we say to minorities.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This seems like a great strategy for feeling superior and Losing more elections.

+1. The libs have learned nothing from the election. It's amazing.

Considering the fact that your orange hero garnered about 3 million less votes , I wouldn't be enthusiastic about telling anyone to learn anything

The problem with this thinking about HRC wining more votes (officially more like 2.9M) is that you can find all of them and more entirely in the 75 counties with the highest household income. These are areas where only about 14.5M votes were cast out of approximately 136M. I know the electoral college sucks, but it's unfortunately the law of the land. When all of your margin against an orange haired clown comes in concentrated pockets, you're clearly doing it wrong. If you want to defeat Trump and the noxious things he stands for, you've got to generate more enthusiasm in voters outside those 75 counties.

If you don't think there's nothing wrong with the average citizen of Wyoming having proportionally more representation, for example, than California, you are part of the problem.

And I said that where? Get out of your bubble! As long as that's the law of the land, were stuck. And getting it changed involves working within the system, unless you have a better suggestion?

BTW, your assumption is offensive, as I'm a former DC voter who's spent the hours waiting to vote in Presidential elections that I know downplay the votes of my R friends in DC. I feel the exact same way about my D friends in WY, AK, SC, MS, ID, etc. and my R friends in NY, MD, CA. These are the rules we are stuck with, at least for now. Giving me crap for putting additional detail to some oft quoted facts serves little purpose beyond your self congratulation and virtue signaling. Good bye.

PP, your outrage goes way too far. Since when is it "offensive" or "in a bubble" to suggest that every American should have EQUAL representation, regardless of whether they happen to live in a wealthy county or one that voted for HRC instead of Trump?

I made no claim about my feelings about equal representation of voters. I stated a fact that HRC's margin came in areas that were unrepresentative of the broader society. That's a fact. As long as we are stuck with this system, realizing that a program that caters to broader segments of society and has much more momentum behind is crucial to those who wish to defeat Trump and co. The rules are bad, but they are no surprise. That people who are proud of their fancy educations and who have ample resources miss this is what drives me batty. HRC was simply the embodiment of this delusion. Chuck Schumer and others held it as well. If you dislike Trump, it has proven to be a very bad idea.

You've got to up your game, anti-Trump folks!

What do you mean, "unrepresentative of broader society?" Methinks you are guilty of very insular thinking. What you state as "fact" is not fact. Hillary Clinton lost the swing states by a mere 80,000 votes. As such you can't pretend they were huge victories for Trump. Furthermore, there's not really such a thing as Hillary states or Trump states, nor for that matter not quite even Hillary counties or Trump counties. The country isn't red or blue, it's purple. Just because you talk to like minded individuals doesn't mean that your neighbor two doors down, or your customers, or others agree with you politically. Also, what you refer to as "catering to the broad swaths of society" is on Trump's part lies - for example, he flat out lied to all of those Democratic West Virginia voters when he told them he was bringing coal jobs back. That's not catering, that's deceiving and what Trump did was even more reprehensible than Hillary speaking uncomfortable and inconvenient realities about coal.

The broad swaths of America are PURPLE and are not anything the GOP can claim to own exclusively, nor anything they can claim the Dems lost.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This seems like a great strategy for feeling superior and Losing more elections.

+1. The libs have learned nothing from the election. It's amazing.

Considering the fact that your orange hero garnered about 3 million less votes , I wouldn't be enthusiastic about telling anyone to learn anything

The problem with this thinking about HRC wining more votes (officially more like 2.9M) is that you can find all of them and more entirely in the 75 counties with the highest household income. These are areas where only about 14.5M votes were cast out of approximately 136M. I know the electoral college sucks, but it's unfortunately the law of the land. When all of your margin against an orange haired clown comes in concentrated pockets, you're clearly doing it wrong. If you want to defeat Trump and the noxious things he stands for, you've got to generate more enthusiasm in voters outside those 75 counties.

You make it sound like there weren't red states that had millions of blue voters. Heck, the aggregate of WI, PA and MI that tuned the election wouldn't full the UM stadium on game day.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Coming from the midwest, I thought this was very true:

Republicans have mastered wielding the struggles of poor white Americans as a cudgel against blacks, against Latinos, against women, against Jews and Muslims and LGBTQ folks. See them? They’re to blame for your struggle. You’re hurting because of them! I am tired of wealthy conservatives who have never set foot among us “white trash”—and sure as hell wouldn’t want their children marrying us—filming campaign commercials of themselves wading through star-spangled cornfields and ranting about the so-called “liberal bubble” and every buzzword that goes with it: Hollywood, communists, “college educated,” etc

Democrats have used the struggles of poor minorities as a cudgel against whites etc. as if they alone are the solution to change their station in life. Yet when in power, little to nothing changes.

You are wrong. Democrats do use the struggles, but not against whites. It's against the corp elite. Black people were brought over as slaves. We've always considered America to be systematically against us. Manufacturing left cities 30 years ago. When black unemployment went up, we were just considered lazy. When white unemployment increased in the heartland, it was because of NAFTA.

"War on whites" is just the latest reprehensible manufactured talking point from the GOP. It's just more of the same warmed over Southern Strategy, get poor white folks looking down on poor non-white folks. This kind of nasty GOP tactic is where the race divide comes from.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Coming from the midwest, I thought this was very true:

Republicans have mastered wielding the struggles of poor white Americans as a cudgel against blacks, against Latinos, against women, against Jews and Muslims and LGBTQ folks. See them? They’re to blame for your struggle. You’re hurting because of them! I am tired of wealthy conservatives who have never set foot among us “white trash”—and sure as hell wouldn’t want their children marrying us—filming campaign commercials of themselves wading through star-spangled cornfields and ranting about the so-called “liberal bubble” and every buzzword that goes with it: Hollywood, communists, “college educated,” etc

Democrats have used the struggles of poor minorities as a cudgel against whites etc. as if they alone are the solution to change their station in life. Yet when in power, little to nothing changes.

Agree. Dems are just mad because their use of identity politics didn't triumph. They thought it would pay off to tell poor white people to check their privilege and to vote for the Dem candidate or else they're racist.

Turns out it didn't.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Coming from the midwest, I thought this was very true:

Republicans have mastered wielding the struggles of poor white Americans as a cudgel against blacks, against Latinos, against women, against Jews and Muslims and LGBTQ folks. See them? They’re to blame for your struggle. You’re hurting because of them! I am tired of wealthy conservatives who have never set foot among us “white trash”—and sure as hell wouldn’t want their children marrying us—filming campaign commercials of themselves wading through star-spangled cornfields and ranting about the so-called “liberal bubble” and every buzzword that goes with it: Hollywood, communists, “college educated,” etc

Democrats have used the struggles of poor minorities as a cudgel against whites etc. as if they alone are the solution to change their station in life. Yet when in power, little to nothing changes.

Agree. Dems are just mad because their use of identity politics didn't triumph. They thought it would pay off to tell poor white people to check their privilege and to vote for the Dem candidate or else they're racist.

Turns out it didn't.

And this happened... where?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Coming from the midwest, I thought this was very true:

Republicans have mastered wielding the struggles of poor white Americans as a cudgel against blacks, against Latinos, against women, against Jews and Muslims and LGBTQ folks. See them? They’re to blame for your struggle. You’re hurting because of them! I am tired of wealthy conservatives who have never set foot among us “white trash”—and sure as hell wouldn’t want their children marrying us—filming campaign commercials of themselves wading through star-spangled cornfields and ranting about the so-called “liberal bubble” and every buzzword that goes with it: Hollywood, communists, “college educated,” etc

Democrats have used the struggles of poor minorities as a cudgel against whites etc. as if they alone are the solution to change their station in life. Yet when in power, little to nothing changes.

Agree. Dems are just mad because their use of identity politics didn't triumph. They thought it would pay off to tell poor white people to check their privilege and to vote for the Dem candidate or else they're racist.

Turns out it didn't.

And this happened... where?

Have you really not heard anyone suggest that white people are privileged and should acknowledge said privilege?

Do you live in the United States?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This seems like a great strategy for feeling superior and Losing more elections.

+1. The libs have learned nothing from the election. It's amazing.

Considering the fact that your orange hero garnered about 3 million less votes , I wouldn't be enthusiastic about telling anyone to learn anything

The problem with this thinking about HRC wining more votes (officially more like 2.9M) is that you can find all of them and more entirely in the 75 counties with the highest household income. These are areas where only about 14.5M votes were cast out of approximately 136M. I know the electoral college sucks, but it's unfortunately the law of the land. When all of your margin against an orange haired clown comes in concentrated pockets, you're clearly doing it wrong. If you want to defeat Trump and the noxious things he stands for, you've got to generate more enthusiasm in voters outside those 75 counties.

You make it sound like there weren't red states that had millions of blue voters. Heck, the aggregate of WI, PA and MI that tuned the election wouldn't full the UM stadium on game day.

Where? Show me where I make that sound like it was case?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This seems like a great strategy for feeling superior and Losing more elections.

+1. The libs have learned nothing from the election. It's amazing.

Considering the fact that your orange hero garnered about 3 million less votes , I wouldn't be enthusiastic about telling anyone to learn anything

The problem with this thinking about HRC wining more votes (officially more like 2.9M) is that you can find all of them and more entirely in the 75 counties with the highest household income. These are areas where only about 14.5M votes were cast out of approximately 136M. I know the electoral college sucks, but it's unfortunately the law of the land. When all of your margin against an orange haired clown comes in concentrated pockets, you're clearly doing it wrong. If you want to defeat Trump and the noxious things he stands for, you've got to generate more enthusiasm in voters outside those 75 counties.

If you don't think there's nothing wrong with the average citizen of Wyoming having proportionally more representation, for example, than California, you are part of the problem.

And I said that where? Get out of your bubble! As long as that's the law of the land, were stuck. And getting it changed involves working within the system, unless you have a better suggestion?

BTW, your assumption is offensive, as I'm a former DC voter who's spent the hours waiting to vote in Presidential elections that I know downplay the votes of my R friends in DC. I feel the exact same way about my D friends in WY, AK, SC, MS, ID, etc. and my R friends in NY, MD, CA. These are the rules we are stuck with, at least for now. Giving me crap for putting additional detail to some oft quoted facts serves little purpose beyond your self congratulation and virtue signaling. Good bye.

PP, your outrage goes way too far. Since when is it "offensive" or "in a bubble" to suggest that every American should have EQUAL representation, regardless of whether they happen to live in a wealthy county or one that voted for HRC instead of Trump?

I made no claim about my feelings about equal representation of voters. I stated a fact that HRC's margin came in areas that were unrepresentative of the broader society. That's a fact. As long as we are stuck with this system, realizing that a program that caters to broader segments of society and has much more momentum behind is crucial to those who wish to defeat Trump and co. The rules are bad, but they are no surprise. That people who are proud of their fancy educations and who have ample resources miss this is what drives me batty. HRC was simply the embodiment of this delusion. Chuck Schumer and others held it as well. If you dislike Trump, it has proven to be a very bad idea.

You've got to up your game, anti-Trump folks!

What do you mean, "unrepresentative of broader society?" Methinks you are guilty of very insular thinking. What you state as "fact" is not fact. Hillary Clinton lost the swing states by a mere 80,000 votes. As such you can't pretend they were huge victories for Trump. Furthermore, there's not really such a thing as Hillary states or Trump states, nor for that matter not quite even Hillary counties or Trump counties. The country isn't red or blue, it's purple. Just because you talk to like minded individuals doesn't mean that your neighbor two doors down, or your customers, or others agree with you politically. Also, what you refer to as "catering to the broad swaths of society" is on Trump's part lies - for example, he flat out lied to all of those Democratic West Virginia voters when he told them he was bringing coal jobs back. That's not catering, that's deceiving and what Trump did was even more reprehensible than Hillary speaking uncomfortable and inconvenient realities about coal.

The broad swaths of America are PURPLE and are not anything the GOP can claim to own exclusively, nor anything they can claim the Dems lost.

Show me how the counties with the 75 highest household income levels didn't give HRC as margin of more than 2.9M votes?

I ran the numbers myself, certified results and the Census's income data.
Trump won the electoral college.
Clinton won more votes, with more than her ultimate certified margin in the totals coming in those 75 counties. It is a fact. And it's a sign of mis-directed political strategy.

The rest of your stuff is obviousness combined with hardcore eye roll material.