> Apparently in the privacy of a voting booth, people are willing to express their true beliefs.

It appears that Trump won because of working-class people in the Rust Belt, who repeatedly got the short end of the stick by the neoliberal policy of both parties. Democrats should have had their backs, but they'd abandoned them, instead, serving the "professional meritocracy". He did not win because of spoiled, well-off contrarians on the coasts. I'd like to believe that this election was decided by people who have really suffered the devastating consequences of being economically marginalized (also, relatively old), not by tech dudes who were offended they'd been called sexist on Twitter.

Presenting this election as a contest between anti-PC gamergaters and safe-space college girls is not only wrong, but suffers from the same blindness of the elites that Clinton suffers from. If it were the true story, then it would be far too depressing to think that the elites are so obsessed with themselves that they are unable to take anything seriously. Fortunately, this is not what happened because Trump's voters are too old to belong to either group. But if it were the true story, then Trump is exactly what both groups deserve.

> I love the great big "fuck you" to the biased media

You know something? Me too. This is the same media that shot down Sanders. But I feel sorry for those contrarians who voted for him just for this "fuck you". He's going to be their president, too. But I'm not sorry for them for that; fortunately for them, they're probably well-cushioned enough to not suffer any direct consequences that are too severe. I'm sorry for them because their empathy is so lacking that they don't mind the real harm done to real people by their lol-spite decision (even though that's probably not what directly handed Trump the victory). The ray of hope I see in this outcome is that maybe the American "liberals" Clinton represented would realize how much their empathy towards the victims of neoliberal capitalism was lacking, too.

> sneering at him, calling him racist

That's because he is racist and/or certainly doesn't mind the association, although I don't see what this has to do with anything. Xenophobia was his overt battle-cry, no dog-whistles needed, and he enjoyed endorsements by people who would have been offended not to be called racist. It is clear that Trump believed that being labelled a racist would only help his chances. He certainly enjoyed and invited the sneers. If there is one thing Trump has shown himself to be good at, it is manipulating the media to a sort of symbiotic relationship. But if anything, he is a product of the media, not its victim.

> called racist

Wait, what? I thought you liked to present yourself as a male- and white-supremacist of the long, proud scientific racism tradition. You have repeatedly expressed a belief that men and whites are innately superior to women and people of other races in many qualities that you value (oh, sorry, you believe Asians and Ashkenazi Jewish men are naturally superior to whites). I always figured that you enjoyed bathing in the air of "unorthodoxy" and contrarianism by pretending to hold those views. You can't both identify as racist to appear unorthodox and at the same time present yourself as a victim of your own show. Pick one.