I think I am in a very similar situation to this question, with the exception that my submission has been refused. I do not want to start a flame, but to me, one of the two reviewers didn't took the necessary time to do a proper review.
The first reviewer made a thorough summary of the paper, and explained in an extremely clear way what were his/her doubts and which parts were not strong enough. The second one looked like a baby plugging his hears and screaming "It stinks! It stinks!". He only attempted to make a point that resulted to be wrong since he was substantially criticizing how an algorithm works (Random Forests), even though it's empirically demonstrated to be effective.
Now, based on the constructive critiques of the first reviewer I refined the manuscript and attempting to submit to another journal. What I can't stand is the behaviour of the second reviewer.
Generally speaking, is the idea to respond to the editor about the bad (where bad is like in the linked question) review(er) a viable action, or should I just ignore all of this and go on?