This is going to be a long entry. I wasn't totally surprised that Trump won the presidency, but I had thought that somehow, some way the more qualified candidate would eventually win out (Clinton, without question then and now). When the Donald won, I hoped that some facets of his candidacy would come out and even strengthen--populism for forgotten Americans, relaxation of some of the more complicated regulations, perhaps a return to the libertarian Donald that advocated choice in reproductive issues and tolerance for gays. Also I hoped that perhaps when he got in office he would be humbled a bit by the history and duty that being president brings with it. Some men who didn't have great histories going in became functional or better presidents (most recently Harry Truman, but also Chester Alan Arthur, James K Polk and Calvin Coolidge to name a few). That hasn't happened. I had hoped that Trump was trying to build a base with his "build a wall", anti-immigrant and thinly-veiled racist rhetoric. Either he or Bannon really believes this and Bannon apparently has the ear of Trump. There is a segment of our population (I think about 25%) that fears outsiders, particularly Muslims and particularly if they're not white. His nativist BS is playing well with them, for everyone else, it's an abomination. Again on social issues, such of abortion, God, guns and gays, Trump is going with the extreme intolerance that is Steve Bannon. The third component of the Trump administration is not "drain the swamp", but hire the most right-wing and richest people to be in your cabinet. This mess is capped off by a man who is narcissistic to the max, unwilling to believe that he actually trailed in the popular vote by almost 3 million and constantly crowing about his "huge" electoral margin. He's made the press his whipping boy and uttered so many obviously untrue statements about unimportant stuff, it is not possible to believe what he says about substantial topics. I understand a bit of chest-thumping when winning when almost no one said you would, but the election happened over three months ago. There are serious questions about the legitimacy of his win and throwing gasoline on the fire by claiming voter fraud and "the biggest margin since Reagan" doesn't help at all. How big a part did Russia play and how close to the campaign were they? I can't take anything that Trump or his minions say at face value. I don't believe his victory is legitimate and my knee jerk will be to oppose anything he is for. I do believe in this situation it is right and proper to resist at every turn. Now about that election. Here's my shorthand to determine how close an election really was: How many flipped votes would win the election for the loser? In GW Bush's case it was 500 and some in Florida. In 1960, Nixon would have needed 11,270 to flip three states including Illinois to send the election to the House of Representatives. In '68, Nixon prevailed because he won California or three small states with a total margin of about 90,000 would have brought the election to the House. In '76, Gerald Ford would have needed to flip two states which he lost by about 18,000 votes. In 2016, Trump won three states by 77,774 so that is what Clinton needed to win the Electoral College. So Trump's election wasn't the tightest on record ('60 and '00 have the modern honor), but it was close and don't forget that Clinton received over 2.8 million more votes.