In the wake of the 2016 election, which culminated in Donald Trump being elected the 45th president of the United States, many liberals, Independents, and even Republicans firmly planted in the #NeverTrump camp sought to find answers explaining the outcome. This eventually came in the form of placing blame on low voter turnout, third party voters, high disinterest amongst the minority voters who carried President Obama to consecutive presidential terms, and "many" minorities choosing to vote for Donald Trump instead of Hillary Clinton. But that finger pointing is factually inaccurate.

There are three important facts most Americans should know about the 2016 presidential election:

1. All of the votes have not yet been counted.

2. Hillary Clinton is going to win the popular vote by a lot (which some estimate at about 2 million votes.)

3. Hillary Clinton is on pace to receive more votes than any other presidential candidate in history not named Barack Obama.

Yet, despite those hard facts circulating throughout social media and mainstream media, many pundits and private citizens have the impulse to direct their blame squarely at minority voters, believing that their lack of Obama-level enthusiasm is what cost the Democrats their shot at the White House.

It's an easy argument to make because it passes the numerical eye test. The fact that President Obama had more raw votes than Hillary Clinton makes it appear that the Obama delegation was derelict in their conviction to prevent a Trump presidency. Well, the thing is, while numbers may not lie, they definitely do not tell the entire truth. And one of the uncomfortable (and maddening) numerical realities about the 2016 election is that voter suppression played a huge role in launching the Republicans into the White House.