Thanks for the opportunity to educate myself on your questionable new sources: https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-04-29/unmasking...

Illegal voting had nothing to do with Trump's unprecedented loss of the popular vote.

Don't forget that Clinton lost the popular vote too; most voters did not vote for her.

Would you expand on this? By most voters do you mean registered voters? Or that Clinton didn't win a majority? From the popular vote results I've seen, Clinton won a plurality of the votes. Not that the popular vote determines the outcome of the election.

I mean that she gained only a plutority.

The winner of the US presidential election must be elected by majority vote.

Of course, as long as we're hypothesizing the election to be by popular vote, we could make it by plutority too...

From the point of view of how electoral votes are decided (excluding faithless electors), it is determined by plurality, not majority. A state's electoral votes go to the candidate who receives the most votes (a plurality), not the one who receives more than half (a majority).

It's a majority of electoral college.

It's up to each state to choose their electors (plutority of popular vote, as you said being the most common, though not the only method).

Unprecedented? It happened with George W. Bush not long ago...

Unprecedented in magnitude; Bush lost by a margin of 544,000 votes, Trump received ~3 million fewer votes than Clinton.

Isn't losing an election by running it wrong worse than Win running it right? People are pointing Clinton and DNC incompetence as merit. California alone is responsible for this "magnitude", and it only proves how good was Trump' strategy.

You can debate an opinion, not a fact.