That's a fitting analogy for U.S. national politics in every election except the last one. Because what happened was a large enough portion of the electorate vo

That's a fitting analogy for U.S. national politics in every election except the last one. Because what happened was a large enough portion of the electorate voting to sacrifice the queen because fuck chess. (And I don't mean Clinton is the queen here-- I mean a large number of voters made a series of choices in an attempt to make a travesty of the game.) In one sense of the analogy, you are correct: people who aren't filthy rich are deluded if they think their choice of presidential candidate will substantially improve their economic predicament. In a more important sense, you are wrong: Trump isn't a symbolic link pointing to the same establishment that was behind Clinton. Put another way-- this was not the year to code up a random boolean generator to pick your candidate for you. Sometimes making the correct choice between two bad options is extremely important, even if the less bad option was set as a trap for you. Now we're living through the most expensive civics lesson as to why.