26% of eligible US voters voted for him.

discrepancy, which is as perfect an example as there is demonstrating the need for the electoral college.

More than that, your reasoning is seriously flawed on numerous fronts. You're assertion was the "74% of the public wonders". Total assumption first of all. Second of all, you then changed it to "26% of eligible voters", leaving out the aforementioned fact that Clinton got essentially the same number of votes as Trump (66M vs 63M). She did NOT have a majority of the public vote for her. She did NOT have a majority of eligible voters for her. She did NOT have a majority of those who voted vote for her. (I've seen every one of these claimed to the contrary.)

More importantly, you're assuming that every single person who didn't vote for Trump is wondering how they didn't look past his election. Could be true, but highly doubtful. Think way, way back (a month ago) to the silly attempt to overturn the electoral college votes (i.e. break the law). Hillary voters were positive that, if given the chance, a bunch of electoral voters who were required to vote for Trump would switch their votes to Hillary. They literally only saw it going in one direction. Then...reality. Which was that MORE voters who were required to vote for Hillary opted to vote for Trump than vice versa. They completely failed even to consider it as a possibility. You're doing the same thing here. You're more or less assuming that everyone who didn't vote for Trump agrees with you. It's far, far, far more likely that half (or less) do.

Fwiw, I think Trump is behaving like an a$$. I thought Obama, in contrast, always behaved the way a President should behave. I also thought he was a terrible president when it came to his actual decisions. He rode the wave of hope and change into office, but in reality he furthered our involvement in the Middle East and fostered a cold war with Russia. The ACA is a mess (and unfortunately, yet not unexpectedly, it looks like Trump and the Republicans are making it worse). He's heralded for releasing Chelsea Manning on his way out the door, yet she was imprisoned early on in his watch! He let her languish in prison for seven years. And he also did more to attack whistleblowers than all prior Presidents put together. Lastly, the Democratic party across the nation deteriorated considerably on his watch. (I do not view that as a good thing for the country. Personally, I prefer balance.)

To a lot of people, Hillary looked like Obama, Part 2, only without any ability to inspire people. She is clearly a far greater warmongerer than Trump, and she's no fan of businesspeople or anyone who doesn't see things the same way. Trump's an a$$, no doubt. It's downright weird to see the tweets he puts out coming from the President of the United States. I think he's dead wrong on many aspects of his stated trade policy. Nevertheless, I know the type well. What they say is not what they believe. They're allowed to be rude in their minds, but you're not allowed to be rude back to them. Their decision-making strategy involves getting everyone off kilter. And they say audacious bullsh!t unsupported by any facts. I have highly successful clients who act exactly the same way (and would deny till their blue in the fact that they're anything like him!). It's just the way they make decisions. All I care about are the quality of the decisions. As for those, I like more than I dislike so far. Decent on cabinet picks (albeit with some stinkers). Putting an end to the TPP. Soliciting the help from free-trade economists even though he disagrees with them. Announcing a tax cut (may or may not get of course). Rolling back intrusive regulations.

But as I mentioned from what I've read so far it looks like he's going to worsen the healthcare situation, and that's a huge issue for this country. (Quick aside, there are fewer people turning 80 right around now than there have been in thirty or so years. Unfortunately, it's going to skyrocket over the next twenty years--then stay there.) So real reform will just have to wait.

Prior to the election, I thought whomever won would be a one-termer. I still believe that.

Back to your assertion, it's about damn time people DID start wondering again. The Democrats and the press were extremely complacent with O as president. He rode the wave of hope and change and then did EXACTLY the same thing in Libya as Bush did in Iraq (i.e. took out the leader, only to have chaos ensue). Were the Democrats or the press up in arms? LOL. Nothing of the sort. Total pass. That they don't see the hypocrisy in this IS the problem.

So the good news is that the press will actually start critically examining the president again, as will the Democrats. Both are good things, imo.