> My threshold for "soundly" would be at least 2 percent of popular vote. I agree that an actual threshold would be subjective. What's yours?

The counts are not in, but it appears that >2% is indeed the number we're settling at. Historically the democrats need to win by 4% to reliably take the white house. I'd say that it is relative between the average statewide absolute margins and the popular vote's margin. This election was "close" for Trump in many districts, but is not close for Trump in the popular vote.

> "voted for the candidate that did not win the electoral college"

You do not "win" EC votes in most states. EC voters are installed to reflect the will of their states, but it's an explicit feature that they can override popular votes if they feel exceptional circumstances have been enacted. Ostensibly, this is why the system is the way it is. Over the last few decades, we've seen this system cleverly modified to strongly favor very specific states in the union.

Wisconsin, for example, has enormous political power over the entire nation. Not because it has more people, provides more resources, seats government, etc. No, the system has been carefully centered around areas where voting margins are narrowest.

In a simple popular vote, Clinton soundly defeated Trump. In our system, less than a quarter million votes decided an election with a margin million_s_ of votes on the popular. The truth is that this engineering takes place because those Republican politics are not remarkably popular or competitive outside of specific regions where a sort of slanted ideological arena has been constructed. The Republicans can't really outspend the Democrats effectively over time, so they limit the field to these battleground states with clever politicking.

> I'm not ready to accept that the divide in America is insurmountable, but to close it we need to be engaging each other across the divide.

I'm not sure exactly what you'd like me to say. Several people in Trump's proposed cabinet think I am a sub-human who needs to be re-educated to be less queer. I find it very difficult to be "centrist" about fundamentally asking me to accept that.

And that's just my personal axe. People of color have a whole another thing going on. A thing that certainly has roots in the actions of the Obama administration, but that Trump's new cabinet is promising to promote.

What exactly are the centrist terms of discussion for de-militarizing a police that recklessly endangers people of color and then refuses to prosecute police officers who violate new laws?

> there needs to be cross-party support in government to fight the efforts Trump you oppose, which means working with people who don't already agree with you.

I think we should do this from a civil side. But I also think civil disobedience is entirely appropriate at this juncture. People begging for order are the people with the least to lose.

So yeah, it's misdirected insomuch as we can simultaneously agree to work to keep the country running, but if it's used as a baffle to stifle unrest and upset, it's wrong. I maintain a professional relationship with people in my organization who voted one way or another, but I am very clear that I think this is a disaster. This is not a contradictory position; it's a quintessentially American one.

And for the record, I am all for modifying the system such that the popular and district votes come back in line. I am also very much in favor of runoff voting being mandated at a national level so that idiots like Stein and Johnson can run and not risk destroying close elections.