Pretty sure Trump won the national popular vote this last time around though? And there’s a strong (politically neutral) argument that Clinton could have pulled off an EC win in 2016 if she had taken Trump more seriously - eg: she never once campaigned in Wisconsin [1].

Going back a bit further, and somewhat tying into the topic of the thread, 2016 Trump owes his GOP nomination (and thus indirectly the Presidency) to a Clinton/DNC op designed to weaken the Republican field.[2] That’s not to say that Trump didn’t eventually resonate with the GOP base, but the powerbrokers of the RNC absolutely didn’t want him and yet their counterparts at the DNC were heavily in favor of putting Trump front and center everywhere.

1. https://www.businessinsider.com/clinton-losing-wisconsin-res...

2. https://www.salon.com/2016/11/09/the-hillary-clinton-campaig...

I think there’s a very strong argument Clinton could’ve won the EC in 2016. There was almost no EC bias this year. Trump won the tipping point state, PA, by 1.8, and the popular vote by about 1.5. The country swung 5-6 points right from 2020. But Harris pretty much just parked herself in PA, MI, and WI and kept the swing in those states under 3 points. If she had won, she very well could’ve done so while losing the popular vote.

It also shows that the counterfactuals are misguided. Campaigning makes a bigger difference than the typical margin of the popular vote. Candidates only campaign in the swing states (if they’re smart) so we don’t know what would happen if they were trying to win the popular vote.

Trump didn’t win the popular vote in 2016. It looks like I was wrong for 2024.

Trump won the popular vote and swept all the swing states.

Not the popular vote in 2016.

Stuff like that is pretty common in Eastern Europe, though. Combine very high levels of apathy and distrust with not very mature party systems plus all the corruption and incompetence (not that it’s that different in some Western European countries these days) and you regularly get random unknown guy/party winning just because they are an outsider and are promising to fix everything (e.g. Zelenskyy is probably the most extreme example of that)

He was clearly known by election day, otherwise they wouldn't have voted for him.

That the establishment and traditional media didn't know him doesn't mean that he was unknown.

Then he would show in the polls

He showed up in the one that matters.

I’m sure that zinger felt good to write.

But it doesn’t address the actual question, or point.

And I’m not your opponent.

If it’s important to earn the personal point to you, I’m happy to leave it here.

If it doesn’t show up in the polls, either it’s an impressive polling failure - which is a high bar that has to be passed.

Or it’s something else.

Manipulation also poses a very high bar that must be passed.

Occam's razor here.. Polling failure and it's very clear from the actual amount of people voting for the guy. Yes you can make a conspiracy theory but it's a bit ridiculous.

Most Romanians that work in IT(and post here) live in their own bubble (because they make 5-10x average Romanian salary) and are totally disconnected from the common folks and can't now believe that the person making less than minimum wage that is serving their 3 euros expresso is not loving it.

Those common folks are similar to the rest of Eastern Europe with strict religious beliefs and very conservative so it's not a surprise they vote for someone that they resonate with.

Similar stuff happened in Brussels where a radical islamist party won seats in the parliament by using TikTok tactics. He did not show up in the polls either.