The stunning outcome of the US election boils down to a lesson in Political Science 101 - how social cleavages determine nation building which in the case of the 2016 contest was decided largely by the rural-urban divide.

WATCHING the election on CNN as it unfolded on the day of reckoning, it was initially not a surprise to see the US electoral map covered mostly in a sea of red showing support for the Republican Party fronted by Donald Trump. One would have thought then, it would be those pockets in blue centred on larger urban populations that would determine the final outcome. In the end, the Democrat party's candidate Hillary Clinton did amass the majority of the urbanite votes, and in fact by large margins. She was, however, trumped by the rural voters which rose mostly by double digits percentage wise. While the voters in individual electoral districts number only in the hundreds or lower thousands, they added up and tilted the Electoral College votes in favour of Mr Trump despite Mrs Clinton winning the number of popular votes nationwide, including the populous coastal states of California and New York.

Were the polls leading up to the super stunning Tuesday on Nov 8, 2016 which showed Mrs Clinton's winning chances at 90 per cent wrong? Obviously in hindsight, they were, by chasmal proportions like the Atlantic gulf (let's not forget Brexit) - giving a new slant to the old saw about "lies, damn lies and statistics". It's now "lies, damn lies and polls".