I'm not sure it's fair to characterize 49.8% of the vote as a "clear outright victory". Harris got 48.3%; that's a pretty close to even split. The majority of voters didn't vote for this.
It is nonsensical to consider popular vote numbers in an election not decided on the popular vote. How many Democrats stayed home in red states because they knew their vote wouldn't matter? And how many Republicans stayed home in blue states for the same reason? It's unknowable. I'm all for the presidency being decided by popular vote, but until it is there is no point using those statistically-flawed numbers in any debate.
> How many Democrats stayed home in red states because they knew their vote wouldn't matter? And how many Republicans stayed home in blue states for the same reason? It's unknowable.
Just to add on, not voting in decided states is appealing for the winning party as well as the losing party.
Personally, I think a nationwide popular vote would be a logistical disaster, especially in the modern era of alternative facts.
The majority of voters who voted for president got the president they wanted. With a president comes admin of all these agencies. So yeah they voted for this.
In theory the US has checks and balances. Ask 10 years ago if you could have a president selling national secrets via an api and you'd be laughed out of the room.
Carter had to sell his peanut farm. Trump makes billions each year.
