Is the fact that both candidates had historically high negatives being ignored?

[NRQ891]

forget for a moment, whether Hillary's high negative were deserved, or what the root of them was. What can't be disputed, is that they existed.

Same with Trump - he had them too, and one can argue that his were deserved, in fact that he deserved higher.

But the fact is, they both had record high negatives, and that means a large number didn't like either

So a large number of people voting, were still voting for someone they didn't like. If you ignore this factor in post 2016 analysis, your conclusions about what happened are likely to be distorted at best