The thesis of your argument is that other people base their opinions on something other than fact. But if we examine what you wrote:
1. A. "This whole discussion is irrelevant. " This is purely your opinion. Other people may have read some of the honest parts of this discussion an found something new. Even if you are very smart, you simply can't determine relevancy for all people.
2. B. "They just won the White House, Congress, and the Senate in one swoop." This is just wrong on several levels.
C. In 2008, the democrats had control of all 3 parts of the U.S. government. The republicans won the house in 2010, not 2016.
D. The republicans won the senate in 2014 not 2016. This is not one swoop, but three. One could argue that an increasing number of people seem to be growing very angry at something the democrats had done. The republican presidency is clearly not a random hiccup.
E. "Facts do not matter." As it turned out, for the election, facts DID matter. Any intelligent person would acknowledge that there has been a disturbing trend of the U.S. press to hide negative facts about the democrat party. When some of these escaped via wikileaks, people's perception on Hillary and some of her policies began to chance. So, the facts really did matter. The question is, why are you so sure you have all the facts when so many indicators show that you probably do not.
F. "We can be here debating the minutiae of this data until the cows come home." In a post about people not examining facts, you make the absolutely hilarious assertion that facts should not be debated....
G. In your argument of facts should not be debated, you also make the amazing assertion that doing so would be a bad thing. In effect, you made a single emotionally charged statement that you feel all should obey.
."We need to a different way to communicate the threat" For all the reason stated above, you say the word communicate, but it seems you actually mean that other thing.
H. The use of the word THEY means that you committing the sin of tribalism, which is generally bad. This has a tendency to limit ones world view and biases their perception of all ideas. In choosing a tribe, you are setting up an us versus them mentality. Sadly, the history of the world shows us that there are no perfect human institutions or movements. When you zealously identify with a group/cause/idea you lose the ability to deal with criticism or new ideas. In fact, someone usually will come along and warp the message and use the zealots to their own end. With this one word, you are demonstrating that you guilty of exactly what you are protesting about.You may have weighed arguments and decided democrats tend to be more correct, but if you can't see any flaws in any of their ideas or candidates, then you are a zealot.