In the landslide of 1984, the Democrat candidate was from Minnesota. Candidates usually carry their home state; the only recent exception was 2000. (Not including 2016; they couldn't both win NY/.)

True, but not going red once since 1976 still sets it as very solidly blue. 

Yes, and you raise a very interesting point about swing states.  Since voting for Trump is a tactical maneuver, what if I live in a solidly Democratic state that has ZERO chance of going for Trump.  What then is wrong with just not voting or writing someone in?  I do live in a swing state (Ohio), so I'll feel the need to vote for Trump.  But if I lived in D.C., for instance, I would not bother to vote (for President) or else I would write Pat Buchanan in.  What's wrong with that?

I'll tell you what's wrong with it -- the Dems have something to whine about "She won the Popular Vote! Illegitimate president! Abolish the Electoral College!"

Even if you live in D.C., you should go give one more vote for Donald Trump. Just as a vote for "Pro-life is better than Abortion" if nothing else.

Think of it as a vote for God's order vs. Satan's order. We all must have a strong opinion there.

I'll tell you what's wrong with it -- the Dems have something to whine about "She won the Popular Vote! Illegitimate president! Abolish the Electoral College!"

Even if you live in D.C., you should go give one more vote for Donald Trump. Just as a vote for "Pro-life is better than Abortion" if nothing else.

Think of it as a vote for God's order vs. Satan's order. We all must have a strong opinion there.

Ah, the Dems will always find SOMEthing to whine about.

I think Hillary is on her 7th different reason for why she was robbed of the election.

True, but not going red once since 1976 still sets it as very solidly blue.

Minnesota has been trending Republican for the last two decades. Trump barely campaigned there and almost won it. 

Broke my Lenten break to post this, and only this:

Caraffa, you're absolutely right. Minnesota is only solidly blue because of Minneapolis-St. Paul swinging the state.

Greater Minnesota is growing, and if the Dems front another candidate that no one likes, Trump will win Minnesota. We'll see in November.

Minnesota and those areas are growing because of the moslems that were relocated there.  A democratic plot for votes. 

Plus, we need to realize that it is very likely that we are all just being played by the true puppet-masters and power brokers (i.e. the Jєωs).

I reluctantly voted for Trump in 2016 based on these considerations.  But to try to get us to be enthusiastic about it, that's asking too much, and in fact it's asking more than a good Catholic can do.  This doesn't mean one should not actively work to help him get elected.  That's OK.  But to pretend that this guy is a new Pat Buchanan?

I'm not being played by Jєωs. I voted for Trump in 2016 for some of his policy positions, some of which I thought he would deliver on once taking power. And he has delivered on some issues, though I haven't seen him do much about enforcing US sovereignty at the southern border, which is a big reason he got elected.

I had no doubt that he ultimately represents the interests of the Jєωιѕн establishment, which is the establishment. Elections are a matter of choosing which member of the Jєωιѕн establishment one prefers in office.

Pat Buchanan represents the interests of the Jєωιѕн establishment as well. He wouldn't be in the public eye if he wasn't considered kosher. But I would still vote for him.

I don't know the last time that non-Jєωιѕн Americans truly ran this country, but it hasn't been for a while. Some would say Jєωs have controlled this country since the creation of the Federal Reserve.

I'll tell you what's wrong with it -- the Dems have something to whine about "She won the Popular Vote! Illegitimate president! Abolish the Electoral College!"

Even if you live in D.C., you should go give one more vote for Donald Trump. Just as a vote for "Pro-life is better than Abortion" if nothing else.

Think of it as a vote for God's order vs. Satan's order. We all must have a strong opinion there.

That is precisely why I intend to vote for Trump.  I live in a "safe red" state and Trump will win it, no matter what.  However, as you point out, Democrats grieve their hearts to death over the popular vote, simply because, as things have turned out, probably less than a dozen largely rural, conservative states have an outsize effect upon the election, while liberals tend to cluster in cities that influence their state's election in only a few states.  There are plenty of conservatives in California, but it doesn't matter, because they are outnumbered.  Ditto for New York State.  Every vote for Trump is one more vote towards giving him a popular vote majority, and thus de-gutting one of their central tenets.  If, hypothetically, the set-up of the electoral college favored them, you wouldn't hear a peep uttered by them against it.

The Constitution, as it was originally written, makes no provision whatsoever for Presidential elections or the popular vote.  The original template, so to speak, was for state legislatures to select a slate of electors (the same way they were to select Senators).  Those electors would be solons of a sort, wise men who would then seek to select a president.  If they failed, and it was foreseen that they might, then the Federal Senate and House of Representatives would step in and select the president and vice president respectively.  The Constitution does not provide for parties either.  Things have morphed into something entirely different, and liberals and other "progressives" want everything to be done by popular vote.  This is even beyond what most liberal European democracies do --- they have complicated systems of proportional representation which then select prime ministers without the voters having any direct say-so either.