Quote (excellence @ Dec 19 2016 09:49pm)
it is significant however it's a little funny of them to print it (imo) because:
like the election they had it completely wrong and (C)linton had more faithless electors in fact she set a record that stood for over a century (more 'winning' for her).
i wouldn't call it irrelevant because it's entirely against what the talking points have been the last few weeks, which is becoming a common trend with the mainstream media outlets and publications. instead of garnering sympathy from these efforts by the parties at hand, more electors ended up disgusted with her.
But whether Clinton would have faithless electors didn't matter because she lost. It wouldn't change anything.
Trump, in theory, could have lost with enough faithless electors. That's the whole reason it's even news in the first place.
Now that she has had a record of faithless electors, it is news, and they rightfully have a story on it now.