Clinton won the popular vote
So what? It's a cute little trivia fact, but that wasn't the success criterion for this particular election. The rules for electing a president are embedded in the Constitution, and yes, that gives less populous states a disproportionate influence on the result. Which means these states cannot be ignored. Clinton's campaign knew the rules going in. They simply chose not campaign in these critical swing states, leaving an opening for Trump. He had just shy of a 1 in 3 chance of winning, and got lucky. But in reality his odds should never have been that high.
Russia hacked the Clinton/DNC emails thereby influencing the election
First, there's been no public proof of this [and still no proof], so until there is, I chalk it up to blustery finger-pointing by a shamed Democratic administration who refuse to take responsibility for their own missteps.
Second, there is a big difference between the Russian government and some hackers who happened to reside in Russian. Even if the hackers were Russian, that doesn't necessarily mean it was a state-sponsored conspiracy.
But even if they did, So what? Of course we should presume that our adversaries are spying on us by all means at their disposal, including hacking. Does anyone seriously believe the US isn't doing the same or even more.
If it wasn't the Russians, it could have been someone else. Clinton's private server security was a joke. And the fact that DNC staff was not trained properly in recognizing and guarding against spear phishing just shows they don't take digital security seriously.
But the real elephant in the room is that no one seems to be acknowledging: this was not some propaganda smear campaign. The hackers released authentic emails and documents written by the Democrats. If the information in the emails makes you look bad, that is because you are doing bad things. Don't blame the messengers when the truth gets out. Blame your own malfeasant behavior.
Which leads us to the real issue: the DNC chose to nominate a candidate so weak and flawed that the slightest negative influence leaked emails might have actually swayed the election. That was a colossal blunder. They played a game of political chicken and lost. As I've shown before, Sanders was a much better candidate and would have beaten Trump handily.
The electors have the ability and responsibility to override the result
The electoral collage is likely never going to subvert the results of the general election. Vox said it well, so I'll just link to that article.
People protesting the result
Seriously? Protest Trump's actions, sure. But don't protest the results of a fair election in which you participated. And anyone who can't understand why Trump was elected should spend a bit more time learning about the lives of the people who live in these red states—especially the blue states that flipped to red for this election. In my opinion this wasn't an endorsement of Trump, rather a spurn of intrenched, establishment politics. Hopefully this is a wake up call to everyone that we need more nationally-inclusive empathy and understanding.
Don't get me wrong—I think Trump is one of the least qualified people to be president. But I look at it as a learning opportunity, and a catalyst to engage more people into the political process. And it will certainly be a great test of the checks and balances system set up by our founding fathers.