Of course it's relevant. It reminds people like you that when you go to New York, DC or California, and talk about "build the wall" or "lock her up" in public, you'll most likely get into a fight. The chance of you winning that fight is much slimmer than what Trump's winning votes in the electoral college suggested.
Is it even relevant that Hillary won popular vote by 3 million? There are infinitely many voting methods. Popular vote happens NOT to be the constitutionally designated voting method of the US presidential election. The relevant information is Hillary lost in a land slide in the election college vote which IS the constitutionally designated voting method. There are millions of hypothetical vote counting methods Hillary would have lost.
Even if the popular voting method is the presidential election method, there is no evidence to suggest Hillary would have won. When the rule of the game changes, it does not take a genius to know the players need to change their strategies. The campaign methods of both candidates would have been completely different. So nobody could have predicted the alternative outcome.
------------------------------------------------
1,http://www.statisticbrain.com/welfare-statistics/
2,《The Bell Curve: Intelligence and Class Structure in American Life》(鍾形曲線) in 1994 by Richard J. Herrnstein and Charles Murray
3,http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2016/11/08/us/politics/election-exit-polls.html
4,Lynn, Richard; Vanhanen, Tatu (2002). IQ and the wealth of nations(《智商與國民財富》). Westport, Connecticut: Praeger. ISBN 9780275975104.
5,J. Philippe Rushton(1995, 1997, 2000). Race, Evolution, and Behavior(《人種、進化、與行為》): A Life History Perspective.
