Actually, Hillary Clinton lost the popular vote even with California; so did Donald Trump.

52% voted against Clinton; 54% voted against Trump; 6% voted against both of them.

The Libertarian candidate (Gary Johnson) got 3.5%, the green (Jill Stein) got 1%, conservative McMullen got 1/2%, and the Constitution Party got 0.15%.

Clearly, the Stein voter leaned more for Clinton, but most of the others were more for Trump. Adding these together, we’d have anti-Trump at 49% and anti-Clinton at 51%.

Of course, that’s not how Presidential races are decided, but with Instant-Runoff it’s likely that Trump would have won.
With IRV, you but list as many candidates as you wish, putting your most-favored candidate first,
followed by the next candidate who should get your vote if the first one does not achieve a majority.
There is no scenario where Hillary could possible have won with IRV.
Hidden in Plain Sight

Worker’s Rights Advance, Under the Radar
The Challenge of a Sectional Election 1911. 8 U.S.C. 1325 -- Unlawful Entry, Failure To Depart, Fleeing Immigration Checkpoints, Marriage Fraud, Commercial Enterprise Fraud

Section 1325 sets forth criminal offenses relating to (1) improper entry into the United States by an alien, (2) entry into marriage for the purpose of evading immigration laws, and (3) establishing a commercial enterprise for the purpose of evading immigration laws. The Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act (IIRIRA) amended 8 U.S.C. § 1325 to provide that an alien apprehended while entering or attempting to enter the United States at a time or place other than as designated by immigration officers shall be subject to a civil penalty.
(i) In generalAny alien who—
(I) has engaged in a terrorist activity;
(II) a consular officer, the Attorney General, or the Secretary of Homeland Security knows, or has reasonable ground to believe, is engaged in or is likely to engage after entry in any terrorist activity (as defined in clause (iv));
(III) has, under circumstances indicating an intention to cause death or serious bodily harm, incited terrorist activity;
(IV) is a representative (as defined in clause (v)) of—
(aa) a terrorist organization (as defined in clause (vi)); or
(bb) a political, social, or other group that endorses or espouses terrorist activity;
(V) is a member of a terrorist organization described in subclause (I) or (II) of clause (vi);
(VI) is a member of a terrorist organization described in clause (vi)(III), unless the alien can demonstrate by clear and convincing evidence that the alien did not know, and should not reasonably have known, that the organization was a terrorist organization;
(VII) endorses or espouses terrorist activity or persuades others to endorse or espouse terrorist activity or support a terrorist organization;
(VIII) has received military-type training (as defined in section 2339D(c)(1) of title 18) from or on behalf of any organization that, at the time the training was received, was a terrorist organization (as defined in clause (vi)); or
(IX) is the spouse or child of an alien who is inadmissible under this subparagraph, if the activity causing the alien to be found inadmissible occurred within the last 5 years,
 is inadmissible. An alien who is an officer, official, representative, or spokesman of the Palestine Liberation Organization is considered, for purposes of this chapter, to be engaged in a terrorist activity.

The President Has Authority to Dictate Immigration
Gregg Jarrett

Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution gives Congress the power to regulate immigration. In 1952, Congress passed a law empowering the president to deny entry into the U.S. to “any class of aliens” considered to be “detrimental to the interests of the United States.” In other words, a threat to America and in the interests of national security.

As I pointed out in a recent column, the Supreme Court has repeatedly ruled that Congress and the president have “plenary power” to regulate immigration. For more than a century, the high court has consistently upheld such authority and rejected constitutional challenges to presidential action banning entire groups of foreigners. Even the 9th Circuit has endorsed this legal principle. Past presidents, including Carter and Obama, have issued orders similar to Trump’s.

It is true that a subsequent 1965 immigration law prohibits discrimination based on race, sex, nationality, place of birth or place of residence. But that law says nothing about religion. And, more importantly, it applies only to the issuance of visas. The president’s authority to deny entry to a large class of aliens is a broader power which supersedes individual visa considerations.

Chris Nelson: Presented for your amusement, if you ever decide to expand this list, because these things can go on forever, apparently like national debt in that way: