Republicans defending Donald Trump from impeachment keep making a curious argument:
Of course, Donald Trump's opponent, Hillary Clinton, received nearly
66 million votes. That's ... more. But she lost the Electoral College, which places more emphasis on where voters cast their ballots than the number of votes a candidate receives, and Donald Trump won the presidency.
Ever since, Republicans have argued for the rightness of the Electoral College by arguing the founders had antimajoritarian designs on protecting the people's rights, and it's a
lousy argument -- one I guarantee they wouldn't be making if they'd lost two elections in 20 years despite winning the popular vote (just as most Democrats would also be on the other side of the issue) -- but fine.
That's what makes the "63 million voters" argument against impeachment so interesting. It relies on a particular kind of democratic legitimacy that
Donald Trump hasn't earned. If we're so concerned about overturning the will of 63 million voters, we surely ought to be concerned with overturning the will of 66 million voters -- which is what the Electoral College does. If you take the GOP argument seriously, Trump would have a
stronger argument against impeachment if he'd won the popular vote. He didn't and he doesn't.