Commentary: Nothing but disdain for anti-Trump protesters

When I first saw pictures of protest marches and demonstrations against Donald Trump's presidential victory, I was not just dismayed, but full of disdain.

What were these jokers doing protesting? I mean, I was fully in support of Hillary Clinton's candidacy, talking it up with friends and strangers alike whenever I could, and, obviously, I wish I had done more.

I am not happy that Trump won, but he did, and fairly. When the protests came into view, all I could think was, "Take some responsibility."

Did any of these people vote for the minor-party candidates or not vote at all?

How many of them filled envelopes or made phone calls or knocked on doors for Clinton?

How many of them mealy-mouthed, "Well, I guess I will vote for her. Better than Trump."

Then, as is my wont, I went to the stats. Statistics have been vilified since the election, mostly in the statement, "The polls got it wrong."

Well, no, they didn't. Most compilations of polls had Clinton up by between two and three percent nationally, and most all of the collective state polls, as with the national one, were well within the "margin of error," that those who want them to swing their way forget about.

Then there is the argument that Trump somehow energized a class of voter - mostly thought of as white and "working class," whatever that means. The stats prove this not quite right.

Trump's vote total was the lowest for any candidate in the last three presidential elections - lower than Mitt Romney; lower than John McCain; ten million votes lower than Barack Obama in 2008, when the country's population was nearly 10 percent less than it is today.

The real problem for the Democrats was that they could not rouse their partisans in the crucial states they should have won.

This was an amazingly close election. The Democrats lost Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, and Michigan by about 110,000 votes total. Since there are 222 counties in those three states, that means that if these people who decided to protest would have engendered 495 votes per county there, Clinton would have won the election.

Instead, they want to blame something or someone else. If Trump is so awful that they want to protest afterward, then why didn't they work extra hard to defeat him? Turnout, as any politician will tell you, is what is most important.

Trump really didn't have any magic. His vote total is not only not impressive, but singularly paltry. I don't blame Clinton, either. The bulk of her personal campaign was extraordinary, with an amazing roster of big-name folks, from President Obama on down, hitting rally after rally for her.

I think the arrogance of the after-election protesters is emblematic of what bugs me. Four hundred ninety-five votes per county. Think about that as you vilify Trump for his anti-this and anti-that. Those quasi-racists you claim came out in droves for Trump did not at all. Your complacency in the face of what you may have thought to be a sure win let Trump win with a squeeze bunt, not the purported grand slam.

Protest on, though, if it takes you away from the real responsibility for that fate. Remember, though, the number 495. Walk a few blocks around your house and count how many people live there and maybe reevaluate what you should have done to even deserve a moment's protest.

Robert Strauss is the author of "Worst. President. Ever.", a biography of Pennsylvania's only president, James Buchanan.  rsethstrauss@verizon.net