What's equally interesting is how unwilling so many are to drill down on the campaign strategies in the battleground states for clear clues as to what drove the outcome.
If your preferred candidate lost, it's too irresistible to believe that there had to be fraud. But when you drill into it, there is plain evidence that one campaign simply outboxed the other.
In hindsight, the same thing happened in 2016 but it was Trump's campaign outboxing Clinton's.
Yes I'm sure that there were a statistically meaningless number of fraudulent votes going both ways, like there are in every election, but in the broad sense, you can look at what I'm reporting happened in my home state of AZ and find the same pattern in the other battlegrounds.
Obama won 2008 mainly because David Axelrod ran a superb tactical campaign. Same for Bill Clinton in 1992 under James Carville's strategy not to mention the pure luck that Perot diluted the vote giving him an opening.
It's interesting that when our beloved sports team loses to an opposing team that ran a better strategy, we are disappointed but we accept it, even if our team was technically stronger. This is why coaches are important.
But in politics its seems to be harder to do the same.
Plus standards of sportsmanship usually will discourage the losing team from acting like a sore loser and alleging that the game was rigged, the refs were unfair, etc, etc.
